NEW JERSEY MILITIA NEWSLETTER

Volume IV, Issue No. VI A monthly newsletter December, 1999

"New Jerseyans Favor Tougher

Gun Control"

Such is the title of an article by Peggy O'Crowley in the Newark Star-Ledger Oct. 13, 1999.

Most of us know that "Nazi" Jersey is one of the worst states in the country for firearms owners. For example, when applying for a pistol permit it's not unusual to wait nine months for approval. (The law says thirty days but the courts let the police take as long as they like. But then the rule of law is dead in Jersey.) The Brady Bill's five day wait would be considered a Godsend in this freedom famished state.

According to the article, "New Jerseyans overwhelmingly favor tighter controls on firearms, far surpassing national norms in their zeal for gun control. Many said they would be willing to scrap the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms in exchange for more security. Almost half said they would support a ban on the possession of handguns in the state."

However, the Star-Ledger conducted its own poll, and the numbers seem suspiciously high. Reportedly "46% of the people in New Jersey favored an outright ban on the possession of handguns." Jon Vemick, associate director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, said 46 percent was "a remarkable figure. That's a policy that in national polls typically garners about half as much support."

When asked whether "owning a gun is a right all Americans should have," 57% said no. When asked "Which do you think is more important — to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?" 73% said controlling gun ownership is more important.

Jim Manown, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association complained. "Look at the way it's worded, I don't think convicted felons should be allowed to own guns." He added, "There are tens of thousands of laws on the books in this country regarding all aspects of firearms that the vast majority of the public are not familiar with. Not a lot of people realize that too often in this country there are laws on the books that are not enforced."

Essex County Sheriff Armando Fontoura said he doubted that tougher guns laws would change anything in New Jersey because many of the guns used in crimes come from out-of-state. "Political polls don't translate Into voles," Fontoura said. "This is an emotional reaction to the [recent] shootings." He blamed "unbalanced news reporting" for misguiding the public.

Remember what Hitler said: "The most foolish mistake we could make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History leaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to cany arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." — Quoted in Tischegesprache 1m Fuhrerhauptguartier (Table Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters, 1941-1942)

Tell that to the average New Jerseyan, guys. The Star-Ledger sure won't.

If anyone outside NJ wishes to send NJM sympathy or condolence cards our address in on the back. According to the pollsters the Second Amendment is dead.

"THE POPULACE IS THE PROBLEM"

-By Andrew Sandlin

Now here's a story dated Oct. 7, 1999 from WorldNetDaily that corresponds closely with the one above.

"The front page of the Sept. 2, 1999 Stockton Record carried a revealing story. It reported the results of a recent poll showing that by a two-to-one ratio, the Califomians polled believe that the need for gun control supersedes the right to keep and bear arms."

Sandlin made a excellent point when he wrote, "What is most revealing about this poll is not that more and more Americans are accepting the (ir)rationale of gun control. That fact is bad enough. The most disturbing fact is that when given a choice between supporting the United States Constitution and supporting a subversion of the United States Constitution, more and more are choosing the latter."

Sandlin also commented on the "Majoritarian Error." "Insightful statesmen who

support democracy in a general sense recognize its dangers and limitations The Founding Fathers were not committed to democracy, but to republicanism; and in the decade after the American War of Independence, many of them framed the Constitution to protect against the will of majorities. This, after all, is one main objective of constitutions: they are created not merely to limit the executive and legislature, but also to limit the fickle whims of majority sentiment. Democracies are fickle, and politicians who claim to speak in the name of 'the people' are usually tyrants ~ either inside the closet or out. The United States Constitution, for this reason, is intentionally hard to change - and let us be thankfiil for this fact, for the majority of Califomians with the assistance of their misguided comrades in the other states [like NJ] may otherwise be easily persuaded to abolish the Second Amendment, and probably much else besides."

Look, let's give New Jersey back to the Indians and California back to Spain and return to a 48-state nation again. Maybe that'll help.

SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES RUN AMUCK

"Five white sheriffs deputies face criminal charges for allegedly chasing and firing on a black couple in their car while the officers were off-duty," reported the AP Oct. 2, 1999.

The deputies "thought" the black couple, Cory Simmons, 23, and his girl friend, Dominique Mapp, 20, cut them off in traffic. So they gave chase and started pumping bullets into their car.

"You have an Individual firing into an occupied vehicle without any justification under the law," said Cook County Stale's Attorney Richard Devine.

Two of the deputies are charged with attempted murder. Sgt. Thomas Lanigan, 34, was the trigger-man while deputy Anthony Bohling drove. The other deputies were charged with official misconduct and obstruction of justice.

NATIONAL ID CARD SHOT DOWN

"This is a great moment for all Americans; we have succeeded in defeating a program thai would have deprived Americans of constitutional liberties, while imposing a massive federal bureaucracy to monitor every step from cradle to grave. Thousands of Americans should feel great pride in knowing their calls and letters to Members of Congress succeeded in stopping the National ID," said Rep. Ron Paul, who led the fight to stop the National ID plan by introducing H.R. 2337, the Privacy Protection Act.

AN APPEAL FROM AMAZON ALLIED FORCES

My name is Theodora Quick, and I have a web page dedicated to the protection of the women and children that may find themselves unprotected by their men, single women without men, or elderly, single persons, or folks not affiliated with protective organizations.

With the need for protection comes the need for self-defense. I plan to teach women and they, in turn, their children and neighbors means of self-defense in the event of a major "upheaval" be it war, earthquake, pestilence, riots, or personal attack. There will be information geared to teaching women how to survive, handle weapons and support any home front groups that may be available for protection. Nothing is worse than not knowing how to protect yourself and having to be a victim of atrocities due to the absence of aid.

Any helpful contributions will be posted.

BE WARNED! There will be information posted that details how to care for the sick and wounded, remove bullets and shrapnel, eat wild plants, make water safe, find water, build shelters, childbirth, bury the dead, manufacture homemade weapons, how to kill or disable enemy attackers, and to mount a home front defense that may include the need to act with deadly force. This is not meant to be used for attacking, but may be needed in case no other options are available. I will have a section specifically aimed at adults and a warning that children should not enter there. The choice to allow children there will be left up to the parents.

Remember, if there is a "major event," lawlessness will be rampant, men may be taken prisoner, women may be attacked and orphans, sick and injured will abound. All these need protection and countermeasures to thwart any evil intentions on innocent parties. Men, if you can, teach the women and answer questions they may have. Seek these persons out and train them. My hope is to build confidence in the women to act instead of react, to have the ability not to be a liability, and to protect the innocents.

I pray that these skills will never have to be employed, but the daily news proves otherwise. The information is added daily. Keep looking at it everyday.

EXPLORE! Survival classes are planned. I hope to see independently formed weapons handling events and survival preparations started in every town geared to teaching women. Can you help? Former military men and women, we need you! Retirees are needed desperately. This is a grassroots movement. I will provide the information as it becomes available. Classes will be posted to inform anyone in the area of any local events. There is a desperate need here and I am being overwhelmed with response to the web page. To any radio stations that have announced this web page and information, I thank you at this time.

"If we fail to plan, we plan to fail." "To be forewarned is to be forearmed."

Stay well. May you be blessed abundantly.

Sincerely yours,
Theodora Quick
Amazon Allied Forces
P.O. Box 3087
Harbor, OR 97415
(541-469-3534)
(teddiebear@harborside.com)
http://www.esotericworldnews.com/teddiebear.htm

GUN SALES JUMP

"Something curious is happening as this year comes to an end. There's been a big jump in gun sales. And there's speculation It might have something to do with the calendar," reported CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart Sept. 24, 1999.

As the year 2000 approaches firearms purchases are expected to break all records. Robert Delfay, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, predicts sales will be 15% over what the gun industry predicted.

"The reality is that fear sells guns," said Josh Sugarman, executive director of the Violence Policy Center.

One Midwest distributor sold nine million rounds of ammo in two days. Also, there's a high demand for .223 cal. rifles.

The San Francisco Chronicle mentioned that firearms purchases in California have risen 30%. The Bullseye shooting range reported that revenues have risen 50%.

"More people are buying guns. I'm talking families, husband and wives. People don't feel safe," said Ron Satterlee, former

Marine Corps marksmanship instructor who runs Jackson Arms.

"We've heard that Y2K has been a real factor In gun sales this year," said Mike Van Winkle, spokesman for the DOJ. "Some dealers tell us that they're up 20 or 30 percent, some say 50 percent."

Y2K isn't the only factor prompting gun sales. "After the Yosemlte thing [the murder of three women] / sold more handguns to women that ever before," said Satterlee.

"It's a factor of watching all the criminal activity on the news and deciding you're not going to be a victim," said Herb Williams, head of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. "If it comes down to it, gun owners would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six pall bearers."

NAMING THE CLINTON'S

NEW HOUSE

As Hillary and Monica's boyfriend plan to move into their new home in New York, radio talk show host Jayne Carroll out of Portland, Oregon has been collecting potential names for the couples new abode:

"Perjurers' Palace" * "HillBilly Villa" • "The House of Bill's Repute" * "Drawers Downs" * "The House That Terry Bought" * "The Knee Pad" * "The White Trash House" * "Liars' Lair" • "Bill & Hill's Bribe & Breakfast" * "Dogpatch on the Hudson" * "The Out House" * "The Love Shack" * "The House of Seven Felons" * "Motel Sex" and "Disgraceland."

LET'S SUPPOSE...

"Let's suppose that Congress does ban private ownership of handguns. From henceforth, the manufacture, sale and Importation of handguns are forbidden by federal law. Why, that's a strategy that has worked wonders for illegal narcotics."

-Columnist Jill Labbe, Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Y2K PROBLEMS HIT HOME

PORTLAND, Maine - State government got its first Y2K surprise when owners of 2000 model cars and trucks received titles identifying the vehicles as "horseless carriages."

Despite millions of dollars spent to ensure that computers arc Y2K compliant, the Secretary of State's office got confused over the 2000 model year designation.

In a related incident housewives in Casco were startled to find that toilet paper thought to

be Y2K compliant turned into Sears catalogs.

"No man long holds his freedom under a government which claims men's liberties. That government cannot exist or continue unless it be of despotic powers. The whole of human experience has shown that When these boundaries of liberty are overstepped, America will cease to be America"

—Herbert Hoover, The Challenge To Liberty, pages 4 & 5

Academics for the Second Amendment

In the early 1980s Northwestern University law professor Daniel D. Polsby referred to the "individual right" interpretation of the Second Amendment as "a lot of horse dung."

By 1994 he changed his mind, saying:

"Almost all of the qualified historians and constitutional-law scholars who have studied the subject concur. The overwhelming weight of authority affirms that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to bear arms, which is not dependent upon joining something like the National Guard. It goes without saying thai like all constitutional rights, the right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation consistent with its purpose."

Why the change of heart? The answer is simple: He studied the subject for himself. You'd be surprised, no, shocked, at how many law professors maintain the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment — not because of any empirical research on their part - but by a total lack thereof. Their opinions are based merely on what they've read or heard some other professor assert. A classic example of "the blind leading the blind,"

In their excellent essay "Under Fire: The New Consensus On The Second Amendment," Randy Bamett and Don Kates reveal that many law professors don't do their homework when it comes to the Second Amendment. And when they do get around to a serious study they're forced to change their previously held notions.

One of the greatest examples of judicial ignorance - and laziness — is an article by Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger that appeared in Parade magazine January 14, 1990 wherein he stated that the Second Amendment was "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special Interest groups that I've ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies — the militia — would be maintained for the defense of the slate. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

As a result of this one erroneous statement twenty-six law professors sent an open letter to the American Lawyer, declaring that the Second Amendment did not guarantee an individual right to own firearms — despite the fact that not one of the twenty-six signatories had ever written a single essay on the subject} Regrettably, it's declarations such as these that are used by politicians and gun-grabbers to push for more gun-restrictive legislation.

Brannon P. Denning came to the same conclusion as did Bamett & Kates in his essay "Talking-Head Constitutionalists": "All the quoted statements [by law professors] were apparently made either in public remarks or

in newspaper opinion pieces. Further, it should be emphasized that none of these persons quoted have published a scholarly article on the Second Amendment, or have given the 'unanimous'federal court opinions a close reading, it is likely that these men were simply repeating the conventional wisdom regarding the Second Amendment as they learned it."

Joyce Lee Malcolm, a history professor at Bentley College, noted in her book To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right that "members of the legal academy, until relatively recently, have been reluctant to join the Second Amendment debate, and the nature of the right to arms remains a historical controversy more faithfully attended to by the partisans on different sides of gun control debate than by professional historians."

The professor is right. The average militia member and patriot in America today probably knows more about the historical and legal origins of the Second Amendment than the average law or history professor.

"Research conducted through the 1980s has lead legal scholars and historians to conclude, sometimes reluctantly, but with virtual unanimity, that there is no tenable textual or historical argument against a broad Individual right view of the Second Amendment," mote Bamett & Kates.

"Reluctantly" is no over statement. Many professors do not own guns and some, quite frankly, don't like guns. "My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot Imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned," said Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of Harvard School of Public Health. Another know-nothing airhead who doesn't know that privately owned firearms have been a boon to public health, by fending off criminals and thereby preventing injury.

However, those who do conduct an empirical study on the topic have been intellectually honest enough to state the facts rather than let their bias interfere with honest interpretation - an art that politicians never seem to master. And remember, an accurate portrayal of the Second Amendment is "politically incorrect."

Another convert to the "Gun Lobby Gospel" (a term used by gun-grabbers to describe the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment) is Professor Akhil Reed Amar.

Before preparing a bicentennial article on the Bill of Rights, Professor Amar had a collective right mindset, but after much study he concluded that "The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to the 'the people,' not the 'states.' As the language of the Tenth

Amendment shows, these two of course are not identical and when the Constitution means 'slates,' U says so. Thus...'the people' at the core of the Second Amendment are the same 'people' at the heart of the Preamble and the First Amendment, namely Citiwns^.Nowadays, it Is quite common to speak loosely of the National Guard as 'the state militia,' buL.Jn 1789, when used without any qualifying adjective, 'the militia' referred to all Citizens capable of bearing arms. The militia is identical to 'the people' in the core sense described above."

Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm wrote: "The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals... First, it was meant to guarantee the Individual's right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation... These privately owned arms were meant to serve a larger purpose as welL..and it is the coupling of these two objectives that has caused the most confusion. The customary American militia necessitated an armed public...the militia fbelng/...the body of the people...The argument that today's National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation."

Former ACLU board member, attorney Alan Dershowitz, a Liberal's liberal if there ever was one, warned fellow liberals that what they're doing to the Second Amendment may some day be used against other Amendments by other groups: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming It's not an individual right or that It's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

Right he is. Some seventy scholars belonging to Academics for the Second Amendment (AFSA or A2A) added their signatures to a letter declaring that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. The letter appeared in the National Review, New Republic and the National Law Journal in March 1993. Here are the final paragraphs:

"The view that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees only the states' right to maintain formal militias attained a surprising respectability. That may be more explicable as an expression of the hostility many academicians fee) toward guns and their owners than as an unbiased constitutional interpretation. The Second Amendment does not guarantee merely a 'right of the states,' but rather a 'right of the people,' a term which, as used throughout the Bill of Rights (e.g. the First and Forth Amendments), is widely understood to encompass a personal right of the citizens. Moreover, the Amendment refers to the 'militia,' a term which in the 18th Century meant not a formal military unit like the National Guard, but a system under which

every household and every man of military age was required to own a gun in order to defend the community against tyranny, foreign invasion, and crime. The leading interpretations before Congress, when it enacted the Bill of Rights affirmed that the Second Amendment means that 'the people are confirmed in their right to keep and bear their private arms' -'their own arms.'

"Furthermore, the 'individual right' component of the Second Amendment became even more prominent in constitutional theory due to the transformation wrought by and through the debates in the [post Civil War] Congress concerning the privileges and immunities of national citizenship. Many Congressmen pointed out that blacks in the South needed to be constitutionally protected in the citizen's individual, personal right to bear arms in self-defense.

"Of course, the right to bear arms is no more 'absolute' than is the right to speak, to publish, or to assemble. Hence, there is room for disagreement over the scope of Second Amendment rights, just as there currently exists legitimate disagreement over the scope of First Amendment rights of assembly and free speech. Nothing in this statement, therefore, is intended to deny either the constitutionality of, or the need for, sensible gun laws."

Note: Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment is a rebuttal to Andrew Herz' Gun Crazy: Constitutional False Consciousness and Dereliction of Dialogic Responsibility which attacked any and all law professors who maintain an individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Under Fire can be found at:

http://www.2ndlawlib.org/joumals/bk-ufire.htm

If anyone knows where we can find a copy of Gun Crazy on the web, please contact us at our email address.

HATCH CRITICIZES CLINTON OVER EXECUTIVE ORDERS

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the land, Kinda cool," quipped White House communications counsel Paul Begala back in 1998. But it's not kinda cool, it's kinda scary.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah is complaining that Pres. Clinton is circumventing the legislative process with his EOs.

"Under the Constitution, the president has the right to issue executive orders, but they have to be tested in court if you want to prove they are excessive or unwise. You know, Reagan issued a lot of executive orders too, but they were not like these. In other words, they don't make laws all the time. I think some of his (Clinton's) could be found unconstitutional."

David M. Bresnahan, writing for WorldNetDaily, commented, "It appears that President Clinton took a major step in his grab

for power on Dec. 10, 1998, when he enacted Executive Order 13107 at a time when Congress was out of town and unlikely to take action or even notice. That order gives the president the ability to enact treaties without the constitutional requirement of Senate ratification with a two-thirds majority vote.

"EO 13107 could be argued as justification for the president to implement U.N. treaties without approval of the Senate, which literally dissolves the sovereignty of the U.S. It set up the Interagency Working Group to oversee legislation proposed by the president to make sure it is in conformity with U.N. initiatives..."

Clinton, back in 1995, went so far as to issue an EO declaring "nicotine to be an addictive drug, thereby authorizing the Food and Drug Administration to establish regulations."

This raises an interesting scenario. What would prevent Clinton from issuing an EO declaring heroin and cocaine to be non-addictve drugs?

"ONE PERSECUTES FUNDAMENTALISTS AT ONE'S PERIL"

—By Randy Barnett, Prof. of law

Back in 1976 B. Bruce Briggs' "The Great American Gun War" warned what would happen if gun control succeeds in America;

"Underlying the gun control struggle is a fundamental division in our nation. The intensity of passion on this issue suggests to me that we are experiencing a sort of low grade war going on between two alternative views of what America is or ought to be. On the one side are those who take bourgeois Europe as a model of civilized society, a society just, equitable, and democratic; but well ordered, with the lines of responsibility and authority clearly drawn, and with decisions made rationally and correctly by intelligent men for the entire nation. To such people, hunting is atavistic, personal violence is shameful, and uncontrolled gun ownership is a blot on civilization.

"On the other side is a group of people who do not tend to be especially articulate or literate, and whose world view is rarely expressed in print. Their model is that of the independent frontiersman who takes care of himself and his family with no interference from the state. They are 'conservative' in the sense that they cling to America's unique pre-modem tradition - a non-feudal society with a sort of medieval liberty writ large for every man.

"From the point of view of a right-wing threat to internal security, these are perhaps the people who should be disarmed first, but in practice they will be the last...They ask, because they don't understand the other side, 'Why do these people want to disarm us?' They consider themselves no threat to anyone; they are not criminals, not revolutionaries. But

slowly, as they become politicized, they find an analysis that fits the phenomenon they experience: Someone fears their having guns, someone is afraid of their defending their families, property, and liberty. Nasty things may begin to happen I/these people begin to feel that they are cornered." Got that right.

MOST STATE CONSTITUTIONS UPHOLD THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. -Ala. Const., Art. I § 26

Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - Alaska Const., Art. I § 19

Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. -Ariz. Const., Art. II § 26

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. - Ark. Const., Art. II § 5

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. - Colo. Const., Art. II § 13

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. — Conn. Const., Art. I§ 15

Florida: The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. — Fla. Const., Art. I §8

Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. - Ga. Const., Art. I § 1

Hawaii: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear amis shall not be infringed. - Hawaii Const., Art. I § 15

Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. — Idaho Const., An. I § 11

Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - 111. Const., An. I § 22

Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. - Ind. Const., An. I § 32

Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. — Kan. Const., Bill of Rights §4

Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have cenain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:..The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. — Ky. Const. § 1

Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. -- La. Const. Art. I § 4

Maine: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense; and this right shall never be questioned. — Me. Const., AH. 1 § 16

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. And as, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. — Mass. Const., Pt. 1, An. 17

Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. — Mich, Const., AH. I § 6

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or propeUy, or in aid of the civil power where thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. — Miss. Const., An. Ill § 12

Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and propeny, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Mo. Const., An. I § 23

Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and propeny, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. - Mont. Const., An. II § 12

New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. — N.M. Const., An. II § 6

North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. - N.C. Const., An. 1 § 30

Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. — Or. Const., An. I § 27

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Pa. Const. an. 1, §21

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. -R.I. Const., An. I § 22

South Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law. - S.C. Const., An. I § 20

South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. - S.D. Const., Ait. VI §24

Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. — Tenn. Const., AH. I § 26

Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. ~ Tex. Const., Art. I § 23

Utah: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the Legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law. — Utah Const., Art. §6

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State-and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. - Vt. Const., Ch. l.Art. 16

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by. the civil power. - Va. Const., Art. I § 13

Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. — Wash. Const., Art. 1 § 24

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. - Wyo. Const., Art. I § 24

Note: The people of thirteen states did not have (as of Nov. 1, 1982) the constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms. They are California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

HERE IT COMES

"Critics are denouncing recent congressional changes to the Posse Comitatus Act that will allow a broader use of U.S. military forces in a domestic law enforcement role including a new unit for deployment in assisting civilian officers during a terrorist attack.

A new command, established Oct. 7 in Norfolk, Va., will be called the U.S. Joint Forces Command, and replaces the former U.S. Atlantic Command. At a ceremony commemorating the new unit. Defense Secretary William Cohen told participants the American people shouldn't fear the potential of seeing U.S. military forces on the streets of U.S. cities.

"The military must "deal with the threats we are most likely to face," Cohen told reporters, downplaying concerns about troops operating on home soil. "The American people should not be concerned about It. They should welcome it." Yeah, the same way the Branch Davidians got "welcomed."

"It Is subordinate to civilian control," just like at Waco.

"In opposing the measure, critics cite the

1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal troops from participating in domestic law enforcement activities under most circumstances," wrote Dougherty for WorldNetDaily.

GUN CASE THROWN OUT OF COURT

"A state judge dismissed the city of Cincinnati's lawsuit against manufacturers, saying it was vague and unsupported by legal precedent," reported John Nolan for the AP.

"These lawsuits filed by the cities have been, in our opinion, nothing but smoke and mirrors with no legal foundation to them," said Jim Dorr, a lawyer for Ruger and Smith & Wesson.

However, no sooner was the case thrown out of court than the Cincinnati City Council, by a vote of 5 to 4, decided to file an appeal. Of the twenty-seven municipalities that have law suits pending against firearms manufacturers, Cincinnati's was the first one dismissed.

Paul Leads Charge Against Executive Orders

"In the wake of President Bill Clinton's numerous executive orders. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced legislation to preserve the separation of powers between Congress and the presidency. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act would allow for lawsuits against the president and administration for orders believed to violate or harm individual rights. It also voids many of the 'national emergencies' which have been on the books since the 1970s and re-delegates 'national emergency' authorization powers solely to Congress. The legislation will get its first public hearing before the House Judiciary Committee next Thursday In an op-ed piece published earlier this year, Paul compared Clinton's use of executive orders to the proclamations and edicts prescribed by King George." -- Capitol Hill Blue Oct. 22, 1999

QUESTION

What's the difference between the FBI and ATF at Waco, and the Nazis?

Answer: The Nazis spoke German.

Letter to the Editor

Dear Friends,

Things were going pretty good until the 22nd day of May. I was assaulted by two thugs after I aired one of my TV shows on the militarization of the Fresno California Sheriffs Dept. and the Washoe County Sheriffs Dept. here in Reno. The show stirred much controversy and many phone calls and questions about many Sheriffs Departments. Understand that I don't believe that this was any kind of officially sanctioned "punishment". These were two renegade morally deficient men who obviously felt threatened by the truth.

It's been four and a half months now and I thought I could weather this incident. However dental and medical costs (I lost a total of nine teeth and had a fractured jaw) along with the loss of time from work, have now exceeded $15,000. My web site and TV show "Liberty and Justice for All" are both produced entirely

by volunteers. We ask for donations, but very few come in and I understand, because it seems that almost everyone dedicated to the cause of Freedom is broke. At this point I have to seek some help. Any donation you could offer would be greatly appreciated. I can only promise you that when I am financially above water the next guy who gets beat up for advancing the causes of Freedom will get whatever you can help me with passed on to him when he needs it.

My attackers said I "have to learn when to shut up." I now know when that time is, it's when I'm dead, at which time there will be at least ten people more capable than I to deliver the message of Liberty. Ultimately it is impossible for the "bad guys" to win. I Thank You for any consideration you can give to help me put this incident to rest.

In Truth and Freedom,
Dennis Grover, American
2790 Wrondel Way, #41
Reno, Nevada 89502
(775) 329-5968
knowfree@knowfree.com
http://www.knowfree.com
P.S. I am not trying to sell tapes but for $8 I will send you the 1-hour show "Constitutional Colleagues", which may have sparked the attack.

N J M. P.O. Box 10176. Trenton. NJ 08650 E-Mail: militia264@aol.com ISSN 1523-4657

Newsletter subscription - Donation $10.00 Cash or Blank Money Order Only