Information to educate politicians/media about " Assault Weapons"

[son of the revolution]

Getting more alarmed with the idiotic misinformation circulating in the PA media , particularly with the comments from Fast Eddie , Mayor Ravensthal and Chief Harper . So I thought I'd share information I have with everyone here in order to fight back by writing letters , sharing with Reps at the Capitol Rally next week , and distributing to reporters. Feel free to use what you need , its all open source stuff I've collected over the years .

One many of you already know about

http://www.gunfacts.info/

This one is more geared to "legal " arguments

http://www.guncite.com/


The rest of this post is just random stuff I've gathered

The National Institute for Justice ( The research arm of The Dept of Justice ) and The CDC have both issued reports that the recently expired so called " Assualt Weapons " Ban had absolutley ZERO effect on violent crime or shootings while it was in place .


Josh Sugarmann , executive director of the Violence Policy Center ( a rabidly anti gun special interest group ) has been publicly quoted as admitting their tactic of taking advantage of the general publics ignorance and confusion regarding what is a true assualt weapon ( one that fires on fully automatic ) and a look a like SEMI only rifle that only LOOKS like a military weapon but functions totally different , in order to further their agenda . See the quote below .

Assault weapons— The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988


Problems with gun registration and licensing
A. Licensing or registration can lead to confiscation of firearms
* Step One: Registration. In the mid-1960's officials in New York City began registering long guns. They promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.54
* Step Two: Confiscation. In 1992, a New York City paper reported that, "Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms. . . . Spot checks are planned [for other homes]."55
* Registration and Confiscation in California. The Golden State passed a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms in 1989. Banned guns could be legally possessed if they were registered prior to the ban. In the Spring of 1995, one man who wished to move to California asked the Attorney General whether his SKS Sporter rifle would be legal in the state. The citizen was assured the rifle was legal, and based on that information, he subsequently moved into the state. But in 1998, California officials reversed course and confiscated the firearm.56
* Foreign Countries. Gun registration has led to confiscation in several countries, including Greece, Ireland, Jamaica and Bermuda.57 And in an exhaustive study on this subject, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has researched and translated several gun control laws from foreign countries. Their publication, Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide documents how gun control (and confiscation) has preceded the slaughter and genocide of millions of people in Turkey, the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia and others.58



" Assault Weapons" Relevant Stuff follows below !



Assault weapons: fact or fiction?
A. Definition of real "assault weapons"
* According to one of the preeminent experts in the field of firearms, Dr. Edward Ezell,64 a key characteristic of a true assault weapon is that it must have the capability of "full automatic fire."65 Similarly, the U.S. Defense Department defines real assault weapons as "selective-fire weapons" -- meaning that these guns can fire either automatically or semi-automatically.66
* Anti-gun pundits in recent years have managed to define "assault weapons" as semi-automatic firearms which only externally resemble a military firearm.67 Dr. Edward Ezell notes that true assault weapons "were designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of full automatic fire"68 -- something which a semi-automatic firearm does not do.
B. Semi-automatic "assault rifles" are no different than many hunting rifles
* Officer William McGrath: "These [semi-automatic assault rifles] are little different than the semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been on the market since before World War II. The main difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle is that the assault rifle looks more 'military.'"69
* "The term 'assault' rifle is really a misnomer as a true assault rifle is a selective fire weapon capable of switching from fully automatic to semi automatic and back with the flip of a lever."70
* "The charge that the assault rifle holds more rounds than a 'legitimate' hunting rifle shows either a lack of knowledge or a deliberate twisting of the facts, as 10, 20 and 30 round magazines for 'legitimate' hunting rifles have been on the market for decades without the world coming to an end."71
C. So-called assault weapons have never been the "weapon of choice" for criminals
(All of the following figures pre-date the "assault weapons" ban passed by Congress in 1994)
* Police View: Over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress in 1990 stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called "assault weapon."72
* New Jersey: The New York Times reported that, "Although New Jersey's pioneering ban on military-style assault rifles was sold to the state as a crime-fighting measure, its impact on violence in the state . . . has been negligible, both sides agree."73 Moreover, New Jersey police statistics show that only .026 of 1 percent of all crimes involve "assault rifles."74
* Nationwide: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 1993 that violent criminals only carry or use a "military-type gun" in about one percent of the crimes nationwide.75
* Knives more deadly: According to the FBI, people have a much greater chance of being killed by a knife or a blunt object than by any kind of rifle, including an "assault rifle."76 In Chicago, the chance is 67 times greater. That is, a person is 67 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death in Chicago than to be murdered by an "assault rifle."77
* Cops' own guns more deadly: So-called assault weapons are not menacing police officers nationwide. The FBI reports show that before the 1994 ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," no more than three officers were killed in any one year by such guns.78 Contrastly, police officers were more than three times as likely to be killed by their own guns than by "assault weapons."79
* It would seem one can't have it both ways. If Congress wants to ban weapons that are dangerous to police, then it should begin by pushing for a ban on police officers' own weapons, since these guns kill far more often than "assault weapons." The same is true with knives and blunt objects. These instruments kill policemen more often than semi-automatic "assault weapons."80
* Sarah Brady's own figures show that so-called sault weapons are not the criminal's "weapon of choice." A study published by Handgun Control, Inc. in November of 1995 shows that the overwhelming majority of guns used to murder police officers are not "assault weapons."81 The irony is that HCI uses a very inflated definition of "assault weapon" and still can not demonstrate that they are used in over 50% of the crimes.82
* Does tracing of crime guns show that "assault weapons" are the weapons of choice for criminals? No. Gun control advocates will often make the claim that so-called assault weapons are frequently used in crime. To justify this claim, such advocates will cite as "evidence" the fact that law-enforcement run a high percentage of traces on these types of firearms. But this is a classic example of circular reasoning: law enforcement arbitrarily run a high percentage of trace requests on "assault weapons," and then this figure is used to justify the "fact" that these guns are frequently used in crime. Consider the following:
* Tracing requests are not representative of all guns used in crime. The Congressional Research Service states that, "Firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals."83 (Emphasis added.) Moreover, BATF agents themselves have stated that, "ATF does not always know if a firearm being traced has been used in a crime."84
* Tracing requests are not random samples. CRS notes that "ATF tracing data could be potentially biased because of screening conducted by local ATF agents prior to the submission of the tracing from."85 This means that police could, if they wanted, only trace so-called assault weapons. Would this mean that they are the only guns used in crime? No, it would just mean that law enforcement have a particular interest in tracing "assault weapons" over other guns.
* Tracing in L.A. That tracing is an unreliable measure of a gun's use in crime is clear. For example, in 1989 in Los Angeles, "assault rifles" represented approximately only 3% of guns seized, but 19% of gun traces.86
D. Semi-automatic "assault weapons" are excellent for self-defense
* Police Capt. Massad Ayoob: "The likelihood of multiple opponents who move fast, often wear body armor, know how to take cover, and tend to ingest chemicals that make them resistant to pain and shock, are all good reasons for carrying guns that throw a whole lot more bullets than six-shooters do."87 (Emphasis added.)
* "All four of these factors make it likely that more of the Good Guys' bullets will be expended before the Bad Guys are neutralized. All of these factors, therefore, militate for a higher capacity handgun in the hands of the lawful defenders."88
1. Drugs and alcohol can make criminals resistant to pain
* Arkansas: A drunk opened fire on an officer, who responded by firing 29 shots -- 15 of them striking the criminal. It was only the last bullet which finally killed the drunk and effectively stopped him from shooting.89
* Illinois: Police shot a drug-induced criminal 33 times before the junkie finally dropped and was unable to shoot any longer.90
2. Hi-capacity semi-autos can help decent people to defend themselves
* Los Angeles riots: Many of the guns targeted by so-called assault weapons bans are the very guns with which the Korean merchants used to defend themselves during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.91 Those firearms proved to be extremely useful to the Koreans. Their stores were left standing while other stores around them were burned to the ground.
* The Korean merchants would probably agree with Capt. Massad Ayoob. When one is facing mob violence and the police are nowhere to be found, one needs a gun that shoots more than just six bullets. A ban on large capacity semi-automatic firearms will only harm one's ability to defend himself and his family.
E. The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own military rifles and handguns
* Report by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982) -- "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."92
* The Supreme Court -- In U.S. v. Miller, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."93


Gun show " Loophole "

Actual number of crime guns purchased at gun shows .
Here we go, top 10 on Google
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf


2001 DOJ report shows TOTAL number of crime guns purchased at gun shows to be 0.7 % !!! Less then 1 percent , yet to listen to Pro Control Advocates and their seditious representatives in the Govt , including the UN The US Gun Show Industry is somehow providing a veritable arsenal of fully automatic assualt weapons to terrorists , gangs and crime syndicates.


Someone needs to get a reporter to ask Fast Eddie what happened to his support for Project Exile a few years ago when he was Mayor Of Philly


Philadelphia, Mayor Edward G. Rendell led the effort to establish a Project Exile after a challenge last summer by the NRA to "give us one major American city" to prove that aggressive law enforcement can make a bigger difference than more laws that restrict gun ownership. Just two days after the city's version of Project Exile, called Operation Cease-Fire, was announced, 15 indictments were returned

[imperialism2024]

For "assault weapon" clarification, the following video might be useful:

[son of the revolution]

This next part is pretty damn long , and Im sorry for that , but its a fight stopper for all the people claiming how Law Enforcement are all for banning Assualt Weapons and more Gun Control . Below is Congressional Testimoney before a sub committe , by multiple high ranking veteran cops, telling Congress that the guns are NOT the problem !!!


House Testimony on "It's a Crime, Bill"

FOR THE UNBELIEVERS
(In April 1995, several law enforcement officers testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime. We don't have room to run the entire testimony, but these excerpts are particularily interesting. - ecr)
Prepared Testimony of Sergeant William J. Hinz Before the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime April 5, 1995
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee thank you for giving me the chance to appear before you today.
My name is William J. Hinz. I am presently assigned to the Homicide Division of the Minneapolis Police Department. Prior to my moving to homicide, I spent eight years with my department's crime lab where I processed all major and minor crime scenes. Before that I was a member of the Street Crimes Decoy Unit. I spent my first dozen years on the force on uniform patrol. During my 24 years with the Minneapolis police, I've been in direct contact with every type of crime, dealt directly with every sort of criminal, and seen virtually every type of weapon used by Minneapolis criminals.
I can report that we did have one military-style semi-automatic rifle involved in a crime once. It was an SKS rifle and it killed a house. I say that deliberately because not one of the four individuals in the car with the weapon was convicted of firing it and only the house sustained bullet damage. So officially we declared the rifle responsible for killing the house.
What is the feeling among Minneapolis police about private, honest citizens having, carrying, or owning guns?
Let me answer that with another short story.
A few years ago an officer from Hutchinson was killed by a pretty hard-core crook. He came into Minneapolis and stole a car. During the chase, my department was hoping against hope that the cop-killer would break down in the country, kick in some farmer's door, and come face to face with a farmer who was armed and willing to use his or her firearms to protect himself and his family from this killer.
That is how much faith law enforcement has in our criminal justice system. Do we support bans on so-called semi-automatic assault weapons or pistols with high capacity magazines. No we do not.
Do we support private citizens who own firearms and are willing to use them? Absolutely.
Armed honest citizens pose no threat to their families, neighbors, or community. Disarmed citizens are little more than prey waiting for a criminal predator.


Prepared Testimony of Patrolman Bryant Jennings
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Bryant Jennings, I am a patrolman with 15 and a half years experience with the Memphis Tennessee Police Department and I am president of the Memphis Police Association, the independent collective bargaining agency representing 1400 members of the Memphis police department.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak about this very important issue. First I would like to establish my credentials for what I am about to say.
My primary duties involve uniform patrol of Memphis' streets. I also have extensive training and experience as a member of my department's Crisis Intervention Team and as a hostage negotiator. Those special details bring me into contact with a variety of violent incidents. I've equally extensive training and experience with the range of illegal drug use, how they affect human behavior, and the variety of techniques to restrain those under their influence. In short, during my law enforcement career, I've seen most everything.
I've confiscated weapons from felons. I've dodged bullets and I've fired my service weapon under hostile circumstances. After all is said and done, I can say this with all my professional and personal sincerity: Firearms owned and used by responsible citizens present no danger to law enforcement officers or to the community. In fact, I sincerely believe armed and trained responsible citizens are an important asset to any community.Congressman Bryant, you may remember the incident I am about to discuss. It occured in Memphis.
It is a story of one very old, very gentle, very tough silver-haired Memphis resident who happens to be armed and dangerous to the criminals who inhabit her neighborhood. The gentle lady in question is pushing seventy. She's lived in her home most of her life and refuses to yield her home, her possessions, or to alter her life-style for fear of criminals. No matter how bad her neighborhood became. No matter how rampant the drug trade grew or how brazen the stick-up artists became. She refused to move. She was resolved to take her stand in defense of what she believed at her little home on Reese Street. I might mention that she also owns a pistol. When armed thugs attempted to rob her on her front porch at knife-point, she drew her pistol and fired. To date, this lady helped two felons meet their maker.
I can tell you without a doubt. Without her pistol, that 70-ish grandmother would not be alive today.


Prepared Testimony by Lieutenant Dennis Tueller ( Dennis is also the LEO that came up with the Tueller drill )Good morning members of the committee and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Dennis Tueller and I'm a Lieutenant from the Salt Lake City, Utah, Police Department, and I have over twenty years of law enforcement experience. I am also a firearms instructor and have trained police officers, security agents, SWAT teams, firearms instructors, and responsible civilians from throughout the free world.
Today you are hearing testimony that dispels the myth that law enforcement is strongly in support of gun control as a method of controlling crime. This committee, and the public are learning the truth from a representative sampling of officers from across America. These law enforcement professionals assembled before you today run the entire gamut from the officer on the street, to the detective that investigates the homicide, to the front line supervisors all the way up to the Chief of a department. The one common theme known to all these officers is that guns are not the problem when it comes to America's run away crime epidemic. We have never seen a gun commit a crime.
We know... I know... that gun ownership by honest citizens is totally unrelated to the violent crime problem we are experiencing.
Street officers and crime victims across the country share the belief that the number one way to reduce crime in our nation is to punish criminal behavior. Make criminals serve the time to which they are sentenced. The clock needs to be turned back to the days when prison was a deterrent to crime - when prisoners served real time for their crimes, not just short vacations away from the street.
Gun hating groups and politicians, like HCI and President Clinton, used police based groups like the National Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Sheriffs Association (NSA), and the Police Foundation in their push for the Brady Act. Then they used these same groups to support President Clinton's Crime Bill.
Contrary to what was portrayed in the national media, working Law Enforcement did not support the Crime Bill and especially did not support its gun ban.
The Clinton/Reno Justice Department bought and paid for its law enforcement allies with perfectly legitimate federal money. They dipped deep into the federal pork barrel - and used OUR tax dollars.
According to the June 1, 1994, edition of the Criminal Justice Newsletter, $4.4 million dollars was given to these same anti-gun police organizations. The taxpayer dollars came to these groups through the Bureau of Justice Assistance and went to the Police Executive Research Forum, IACP, National Sheriff's Association, and the Police Foundation. The money was ostensibly to provide community policing training and technical assistance. This type of taxpayer funding of police groups that profess their unwavering support of more gun-control has been ongoing for years. Investor's Business Daily and Law and Order magazine both claim that IACP received almost 650,000 dollars in 1993. ... Those who have surveyed our police have found that they do not support more gun control.

[son of the revolution]

Prepared Testimony of Chief Dwaine L. Wilson
As many of you may know, Kennesaw, Georgia gained international attention 13 years ago this past March when the city passed a law allowing the head of each household to keep and bear firearms for the defense of themselves, their families, and their homes.
I've been in law enforcement for the past 25 years. I've supervised patrol units, been in charge of criminal investigations, created Kennesaw's detective division, and been chief of the department for the past 10 years. As all chiefs know, and Congressman Heineman, being a former chief of police, can attest to, we have a unique responsibility to the community, safeguarding the rights of all, without putting one above the other. Kennesaw, itself, provides probably the best example of how law enforcement and armed honest citizens co-exist. Since virtually every home has at least one gun in it.
I am here to tell you, you would be hard pressed to find a more peaceful community anywhere in this or any nation on earth. Since our "armed citizen" law passed in 1982, crime, particularly armed crime, in Kennesaw has dropped off dramatically. In fact, Kennesaw has twice been nominated as the safest city in Cobb County.
In spite of predictions by the press and anti-gun politicians, we haven't had any incidents where citizens have accidentally shot family members, or domestic disturbances being resolved with gunfire.
Kennesaw is an armed community but a very peaceful community.
Do we as law enforcement feel secure knowing a significant number of citizens in our community are armed? The answer is an emphatic yes indeed. In fact we are currently instituting community policing and neighborhood watch programs in Kennesaw. The police department will be working directly with armed citizens - and we are very comfortable knowing they are armed.




Prepared Testimony by Officer Steve Rodriguez
Chairman McCollum, members of the Subcommittee, I am Officer Steve Rodriguez of the Albuquerque, New Mexico Police Department. I am here today to discuss with you the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and how I, as a law enforcement officer, relate to those rights. This is one of the universal things that I have in common with all other police officers nationwide. Just like the 535 members of the United States Congress, we as law enforcement officers took a solemn oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights; this is one of the most profound of our duties, yet it is often one of the most neglected of our responsibilities. This oath that we swore unites us with all of the law enforcement officers of the past, and with all of those in the future who have yet to swear the oath; it is testimony to the enduring nature of law enforcement's commitment to upholding and protecting the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which includes all 10 of the amendments. Most police officers are staunch opponents of any and all efforts to erode Second Amendment rights. To take a position to the contrary would be to grossly neglect and ignore our sworn oath of office. I myself swore this oath fourteen years ago. After three years in the United States Marine Corps, I joined the Albuquerque Police Department. ...I am neither a political cop nor a desk jockey taking fingerprints and pushing paperwork.
As a cop with plenty of "street time," I can attest to the fact that the myth of gun control is just that-it has absolutely no bearing on reducing violent crime; in fact I would argue the reverse. An attacker is much more likely to approach someone that he perceives as unarmed and helpless. Equally useless is the ridiculous approach of disarming honest people. As a police officer I know that I cannot assume personal responsibility for all of the men, women, and children of Albuquerque. Usually, the only persons at the scene of the crime are the attacker and the victim. Police officers respond as quickly as time, distance, and logistics allow. But most crimes occur in less than a minute and without law enforcement presence. The victim must protect his or herself during the crime and until law enforcement assistance can arrive. I've seen it a thousand times. That is life on the street, and law enforcement is forced into a reactive role. The crimes still occur; gun control isn't crime control, it doesn't control crime in any way. Gun control only effects crime in one way - it helps to insure that the victim will be unarmed.
It all comes back to the fact that our criminal justice system has failed. I see this perhaps more than most. ...I see the same criminals again and again. I sighted a woman I had previously arrested walking the streets one day and immediately stopped her. I recognized her as someone who had been arrested and charged 97 previous times. 97 times! But out of 97 arrests, she had only 16 convictions. Through plea bargaining and standard court backlog, she had only served time for 16 convictions, and never served out a full sentence for those.
Which brings us to the Second Amendment. Our crime problem is with the system, not the weapon. The weapons that I see are small caliber, easily concealable. Mostly Jennings and Ravens brands. They only hold five or six rounds. And the average gun that we take off the streets has had only two or three rounds fired. I've spoken to our ballistics experts and they've told me that between 1993 and 1995, we only brought in two semiautomatic rifles-22s-used in a crime. The weapons aren't the problems.
And so I ask you today, please don't limit our Second Amendment rights. Don't place a law enforcement officer in the position of enforcing a law in violation of his sworn oath. Instead, give us tougher sentencing. Make the criminal justice system intimidating. Right now, Metropolitan judges are giving longer sentences for misdemeanors that district judges are giving for felonies. THAT is a crime. And that is why my partners and I get the pleasure of arresting the same persons again and again, time after time after they have created more victims. It's disheartening and demoralizing. We are facing a new trend in law enforcement - lower morale on the force. Guys come in with the blue knight mentality and a commitment to hard work. But after seeing their cases thrown out or bargained down, after seeing repeat offenders committing crimes on the streets time after time, they develop a production line mentality. Their heart is not in it because they know the routine, they know what to expect, and they know that they will probably arrest this same individual again, at a later date.



Prepared Testimony by Master Officer Craig Roberts
Gentleman, I am Master Police Officer Craig Roberts of the Tulsa, Oklahoma, Police Department. I am not an Oklahoma native; I am originally from Southern California, from a community that borders what recently has reached media infamy known as South Central L.A.
However, for the past quarter of a century I have worn the badge of the police department of the City of Tulsa, a city of 220 square miles and almost 400,000 people. Our department is almost 700 strong in sworn personnel, and we work in eight divisions and three divisional patrol areas. During all of my time on the job I have not once faced or even seen a so-called assault weapon used in a confrontation in the hands of criminals. Indeed, I know of only two circumstances wherein such a firearm was even mentioned-and one of those times concerned one simply being turned in as recovered stolen property.
Police officers do not fear semi-automatic weapons, no matter how many rounds the magazine holds. What we fear are the criminals that use any weapon they can get, regardless of the laws on the books, that we encounter over and over on the streets, after they have been processed through the criminal justice system, served a minimum sentence (if any sentence at all), and have been released to prey on citizens again. It's not the gun laws that need to be fixed, it's the judicial system.
Regarding the conflict over the wording of the Second Amendment, I would like to take the constitutional issue into an area that has not been mentioned. In January of 1969 I took an oath of office. This oath, in part, stated that I "...do solemnly swear, that I will defend, enforce, and obey, the Constitution and laws of the United States, the State of Oklahoma and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Tulsa. That I will obey the lawful orders of my superior officers and regulations of the Tulsa Police Department. That I will protect the Rights, Lives and Property of all citizens and uphold the honor of the Police Profession, with my life, if need be."
Since that date I have had to make sure that every arrest I made, every law I enforced, met the tests of Constitutionality. If it didn't, I would be held personally liable-much as were the officers in the Rodney King affair. Indeed, we are all subject to 42 USC S 1983, and I quote:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
The majority of police officers across the nation take a similar oath of office as mine. Because of our oath to the Constitution-the supreme legal document of our land-and the penalties of violating that oath or enforcing laws that might violate the test of Constitutionality, attempting to enforce the so-called ban on "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines-due to the word "infringed"-make the effort confusing, hazardous and legally dangerous for law enforcement officers. We have all been trained, either in the military or in law enforcement, that we have a duty to refuse to obey an unlawful or illegal order, law or regulation. In fact, a Supreme Court decision (Marbury vs. Madison) states: "An Act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten is the reason the Constitution was written."
Add to this, Section 256 from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority to anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it." Further, "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Because of our training and education, we know that if we enforce a law upon a citizen that later fails a test of constitutionality, we are personally liable. And when that occasion occurs, neither the members of Congress that pass the laws, nor the Department of Justice comes to our defense. To the contrary, the DoJ becomes the prosecutor and we become the defendants.
...(W)e do not need more laws to confuse us and place us in harm's way in civil actions, we need fewer.

[son of the revolution]

From David Kopel , noted criminologist

http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/CluelessBATFtracing.htm


The fallacy of ATF Tracing and Assault Weapons

Law Review of Michigan State University Detroit College of Law Spring 1999
Clueless:
The Misuse of BATF Firearms Tracing Data
David B. Kopel [a1] Copyright © 1998 Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University; David B. Kopel Table of Contents


Similarly, the refusal to trace pre-1990 guns will also skew the types of long guns which are traced. So-called "assault weapons" were big sellers in the 1980s and early 1990s, but were a very small part of the firearms market in most prior decades. [22] Thus, limiting traces to only guns made after 1990 will artificially inflate the percentage of "assault weapons" which are traced.
Finally, studies have found that between forty and sixty percent of BATF gun traces fail. [23] This creates a situation similar to a pollster finding that half of the persons polled refuse to answer certain questions. Elementary statistics theory requires that a data gatherer not ignore the "non-response bias." [24] Thus, the subset of guns for which traces are successful is even less likely to resemble crime guns in general.B. Most Gun Traces Are Not Associated with Violent Crime
Violent crimes account for only one-seventh of BATF traces. [25]At least half of BATF traces are for possession offenses. [26]To the extent that any generalizations can be drawn from BATF trace data, these generalizations are about gun owners whose gun possession violated some kind of ordinance or statute, but who did not use their gun for illegal violence.
In 1992, anti-gun lobbyists touted BATF trace data from the first nine months of 1991 to argue that as much as forty-one percent of New York City "crime" guns came from Virginia. [27] But of the New York City firearms traced to Virginia during the first nine months of 1991, only thirty- two guns (or one-sixth of the traces) were used in a violent crime. [28] The rest were associated with technical violations of New York City's arduous handgun licensing scheme, or other non-violent offenses. [29] Forty-seven percent of the violations involved weapons possession crimes (including simple possession of an unlicensed gun in the home); thirty-five percent involved other non-violent offenses (such as possessing a handgun and a gram of cocaine in the same apartment). [30]
A 1970s national analysis of handgun seizures found that twenty to twenty- five percent of police handgun seizures were not associated with any crime, not even a licensing violation. [31]Some of the guns traced by BATF might just have been turned into the police by lawful owners who wanted to get rid of them. (For example, a widow who wanted to dispose of her husband's hunting rifle). [32]
In New York City, obtaining a handgun license is very difficult. Although New York law requires the police to act on license applications within six months, delays of nearly a year are routine-even for crime witnesses who are being threatened by criminals out on bail. [33] In addition, it is nearly impossible for an applicant to get a license to carry a handgun, unless the applicant is named "Donald Trump," in which case the carry permit will be granted in a few days.
Because obtaining a New York City handgun permit is very difficult for unwealthy people who cannot afford lawyers, many citizens obtain handguns illegally; they adopt the adage that "it is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six." They would rather face the risk of prosecution for an unlicensed handgun than face the risk of living in New York City without a handgun.
Much the same story can be told for Washington, D.C., where crime is even worse than New York City, where the police are notoriously ineffective, and where handgun purchases and possession are entirely illegal. [34]
Thus, to the extent that any conclusions could be drawn from BATF trace data, the conclusions show that guns from other states are used to evade a prohibition (Washington, D.C.) or near-prohibition (New York City) on handgun ownership by non-elites. The trace data, by themselves, do not show that other states are the main source of guns for violent criminals in New York City or Washington D.C., because five-sixths of traces do not involve violent crime.
Indeed, the artificially-created "gun criminals" in New York or Washington D.C., who own handguns under circumstances which would be entirely lawful in Virginia or other states, (possession of a handgun for home protection) are much more likely to own a traceable handgun than are actual violent criminals. A person owning a handgun for home defense would have little reason to file off the serial number. However, according to a study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, sixty percent of actual felons consider a gun's untraceability to be "very important" and another twenty-one percent consider it to be "a little" or "somewhat" important. [35]
Of course no one would even bother to attempt to trace a gun from which the serial number had been removed (sometimes the serial number can be removed through advanced forensics, but the process is difficult, and used very rarely). This is one more reason why the traced guns are generally not similar to non-traced guns.


II. "Assault Weapons": Police Data Show BATF Traces to Overestimate Criminal Use by 1000% "To hell with statistical theory," some people might say. "Whatever the objections raised by skeptics, we still think that gun traces provide good data about gun crime and gun sales in general, even if the figures might be a little rough here and there."
If one accepts this argument, then one policy conclusion becomes inescapable: one-handgun-per-month laws are a failure and should be repealed. The laws specifying that citizens may purchase only one handgun per month are based on the premise that purchases of multiple handguns from gun stores are a major source of supply for interstate gun-runners.According to the Schumer study, two of the three states that supplied the most guns to New York were Virginia and South Carolina, the only states in the nation with one-gun-a-month laws at the time of the study. [43]
But dropping one-gun-a-month laws solely because of the Schumer study (or because of any other analysis of trace statistics) would be a mistake.We know that trace statistics can result in errors of more than 1000%, and therefore, trace statistics are so far removed from real-world experience to be of no value in determining crime policy. (Again, to point out this fact is not to denigrate the BATF tracing program; the program was designed to solve individual crimes, not to gather sociological data). One of the most notable real-world instances in which tracing data was used to "prove" facts which were wholly contrary to reality was in regard to so-called "assault weapons."
"Assault weapon" is a marketing term, whose meaning varies depending on whether the user of the term is a member of the gun industry or a gun control advocate. The term generally refers to firearms that have a military-style appearance. Appearance notwithstanding, "assault weapons"are functionally indistinguishable from normal-looking guns: they fire only one bullet with each press of the trigger and the bullets they fire are intermediate-sized and less powerful than the bullets from big game rifles.
But starting in 1989, Handgun Control, Inc., and other anti-gun organizations, gained national attention by claiming that assault weapons were the "weapon of choice" among criminals. [44]The political gun ban campaign was significantly bolstered by an article on BATF traces-a report that, considerably later, was shown to be grossly misleading. In May 1989, two reporters from the Cox newspaper chain conducted a study of BATF firearms traces. [45] The reporters found that for some crimes, assault weapons were involved in approximately ten percent of the traces. [46] Since "assault weapons" constitute only about one percent of the total firearms stock (the reporters asserted), the ten percent trace figure indicated that "assault weapons" were disproportionately involved in gun crime. "An assault gun is twenty times more likely to be used in crime than a conventional firearm," Cox newspapers claimed. [47] Politicians who wanted to ban guns took up the line. [48] Police data, however, showed the ten percent figure to be false. [49]
The Cox report gave trace percentages for both the nation as a whole (ten percent) and for selected major cities. [50]The percentage of "assault weapons" reported by Cox newspapers, based on the BATF traces, was ten percent for Chicago, nineteen percent for Los Angeles, eleven percent for New York City, and thirteen percent for Washington, D.C. [51]In each of those cities, police departments conducted complete counts of all guns that had been seized (not just the guns for which the police department requested a BATF trace).[52]According to the actual police department counts of crime guns in each city, the percentage of "assault weapons" were only three percent for Chicago, one percent for Los Angeles, one percent for New York City, and zero percent for Washington, D.C. [53]Thus, when the BATF trace sample was compared with the comprehensive police gun seizure data, BATF traces over- stated the percentage of assault weapons used in crime by over 1000% for Los Angeles, New York, and Washington.

"Assault weapons" were a high percentage of BATF gun traces, but a small percentage of total crime guns.
Sources: BATF; police departments in respective cities.

There are several reasons why "assault weapons" are more likely to be selected for a trace request. [54] Many "assault weapons" have an unusual appearance, which might raise curiosity (and a trace request) compared to an "old-fashioned" gun, such as a Smith & Wesson .38 Special. [55]
The publicity surrounding "assault weapons" also may have increased police interest in these weapons, increasing the likelihood that a trace would be requested. [56] As the Congressional Research Service noted, "a law enforcement officer may initiate a trace request for any reason." [57]"If . . . law enforcement offices in certain regions have determined that certain types of firearms (such as military-style semiautomatics that accept large capacity magazines) should be traced because they are thought to be used by dangerous offenders, the data in the tracing system will reflect those specific concerns." [58]
Polling data show that high-ranking police administrators, such as big- city police chiefs, may be far more supportive of gun control in general, and assault weapon prohibition in particular, than are mid-ranking or street-level law enforcement officers. [59]As a result, for the reasons explained by the Congressional Research Service, heightened policy administration concern about "assault weapons" could result in a disproportionate percentage of such guns being submitted to BATF for tracing.In addition, almost all "assault weapons" were first sold at retail after 1968. Before 1968, gun retailers who sold only to in-state customers did not need a federal firearms license. [60] Also, before 1968, federal law did not require firearms dealers to maintain registration records of retail sales. [61]Thus, successful traces are more likely to be conducted on guns made after 1968-a category which includes a higher percentage of the total stock of assault weapons than of the total stock of, for example, bolt-action rifles. While the Cox study was in progress, BATF had a policy of not accepting trace requests for guns made before the early 1980s. This policy certainly would cause an increase in the percent of traces involving "assault weapons."
It should be noted that the discrepancy between the BATF traces and the actual crime gun seizures was not confined to the four major cities discussed above. Researchers have now obtained comprehensive crime gun data for many cities based on actual inventories of firearms seized by the police, in not one of the cities does the percentage of "assault weapons" seized even remotely approach the BATF trace figure of ten percent. The highest figure was four percent; one percent (or less) was much more common. [62]Accordingly, it can only be concluded that BATF firearm trace requests are not an accurate mirror of actual firearm use in crime.To accompany the temporary federal prohibition on new "assault weapons," [63]Congress in 1994, ordered the Attorney General to study whether the ban was changing patterns in "assault weapon" use by criminals. When asked if data existed to allow such a study, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) Section replied, "The UCR Section knows of no existing data to provide a basis to address the question." [64] Stated less delicately, the FBI's statistical experts do not believe that gun traces provide reliable information about the general use of guns in crime. Lobbyists and politicians who attempt to use trace data for this purpose should explain why they think that they are right and the FBI is wrong. Conclusion
To advocates of restrictive gun laws, BATF traces are like psychoanalyst's inkblots: the viewer always finds in them exactly what he wants to see. Thus, BATF traces are used to create allegedly "scientific" data to promote the banning of small and inexpensive guns, [65] to demonize certain large handguns, [66] to prove that the Brady Act is working, [67] to prove that the federal assault weapons ban is working, [68] to prove that more controls are needed on "assault weapons," [69] to make the case for eliminating firearms dealer licenses for persons who operate small businesses from their home, [70] and to prove that gun rationing laws work. [71]
The (mis)use of BATF tracing reports by gun control lobbyists has often worked. The federal "assault weapons" ban, the Virginia gun rationing law, and the federal elimination of home-based businesses from the ranks of licensed firearms dealers all became law with the significant help of claims made about BATF traces. Proposals for further controls, such as federal licensing of gun owners, federal gun purchase rationing, and state and federal bans on small handguns are all predicated on the allegedly scientific information derived from BATF traces.


Sorry that was so damn long everyone . Anyway , hope this helps gives anyone writing letters or talking to media /politicians some ammo to fight with . Enjoy

[son of the revolution]

... Those who have surveyed our police have found that they do not support more gun control.
From the Police Marksman Association survey from September-October and November-December 1994, comes:
95% of officers do not like the ban on large capacity magazines 92% do not support the so-called "Assault Weapon" Ban
93% disagree with the "Brady Bill"
From the July/August 1991 edition of Law Enforcement Technology magazine after surveying its 25,000 subscribers determined that:
78.7% were against a ban on "Assault Weapons"
84.6% feel that gun control does not lessen crime 78.2% believe that criminals will always be able to obtain guns irrespective of gun control legislation
From the 1993 Southern States Police Benevolent Association survey of over 10,000 members comes:
96.4% support firearms ownership for self-protection
86.5% felt that waiting periods would only affect law-abiding citizens
1.1% choose guns as the most pressing cause of crime (given 20 choices)
The April 1993, informal survey of a sampling of the readers of Police magazine showed:
85% did not support an "Assault Weapons" ban 90% feel gun ownership by civilians has not negatively affected their jobs
85% believe citizen's gun ownership increases public safety
77% did not support the "Brady Bill"
These surveys back up what I know from more than twenty years of police experience. Street cops overwhelmingly do NOT support gun control. We are not interested in more laws which criminals will flaunt and ignore. The political and dishonest "behind the scenes" actions of the anti-gun leaders of the national organizations that purport to speak America's law enforcement professionals must be exposed and stopped.
Gun control laws are historically abject failures... guns are banned, honest citizens' rights are destroyed and the criminals continue to avoid punishment.

[ccphilly1984]

you do realise that these politicians and media do not want to know the truth... they believe what they want to believe and that is that every criminal is rambo and anyone with a gun is bad... i live with an anti gunner and that's the reason why every gun i own has to be able to be concealed entering or leaving my house... hence no shotgun for me

[son of the revolution]

you do realise that these politicians and media do not want to know the truth... they believe what they want to believe and that is that every criminal is rambo and anyone with a gun is bad... i live with an anti gunner and that's the reason why every gun i own has to be able to be concealed entering or leaving my house... hence no shotgun for me

Actually I think theres a very small minority of them that dont want to know the truth . The scarier , and much more realistic version , is the politicians and the media already KNOW the truth , but since it doesnt serve their purposes, they intentionally supress it . FYI , buy yourself a " Duster " style jacket and you can easily conceal just about any long gun you'd want under it BTW , your mate cant be to much of an Anti gun person , if they allow guns in the house . A true died in the wool anti wont get with in 20 feet of one , let alone live with one under the same roof , lest that evil gun jump up off the table and shoot someone all by itself .

[son of the revolution]

bump just to keep it highly visible

[Brick]

SOR - You efforts are heroic in nature and scope and all the information you provide is of great use to someone writing a scholarly paper on the subject.

But the sad truth is that neither the media nor the politician have any intention of learning your side, you see they know the truth, they know that you are not a threat or a criminal and because of that your guns will not be a threat either. But, they have made up thier minds and they just will not change them. They are true believers. And they believe that the surest way to thier ultimate power is to control you. They recognize though, that they can't have that control or the power it brings without removing your will and your ability to resist.