Heads Up A Weekly edition of News from around our country January 17, 1997 #18 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net ---------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html ---------------------------------------------------------- MORE GUN GRABS They've got what it takes to take what you got, folks. Congress, that is. And apparently, the gun-grabbers found another Congressional patsy to submit their new oppressive laws in The House. Michigan's Rep. John Conyers has already submitted two new anti-gun bills: HR 115 and HR 116. The first bill is "To prohibit the transfer of a firearm to, and the possession of a firearm by, a person who is intoxicated." The term "intoxicated" applies to both drugs and alcohol, and the standard is set at the same level necessary for an impaired driving arrest. The bill outlaws the transfer or "possession" of a firearm to or by anyone impaired by the use of drugs or alcohol. And, incidentally, there is no exception for police officers. What, exactly, is "possession" here? Ah ha! We do not know. It could be anything the BATF says it is. This is a rather interesting bill for an inner-city representative to submit -- and, especially John Conyers of Detroit. About a quarter of the Detroit police head for the local watering hole every day after their shift. If this bill passes, they will have to disarm themselves first. Yeah; sure they will! And by the way John: The way you wrote the bill, being high on marijuana would count too. . . . The second bill, HR 116, is even stranger, considering where Conyers lives within the city of Detroit. You see, full automatic gunfire is as common as single shots fired in the Conyers neighborhood. And, there's quite a lot of both. Regardless, the "Gun Safety Act" is targeted at getting the inexpensive "Saturday Night Specials" off the streets. Among other silliness, HR 116 states that a pistol is a junk gun unless it can "prevent a child of less than 7 years of age from discharging the firearm by reason of the amount of strength, dexterity, cognitive skill, or other ability required to cause a discharge." One would think that Rep. Conyers would know a little more about handguns than this. You see, folks, one of the most popular sidearms for police nowadays is the Glock. And, the strength necessary to fire the Glock is probably less than any other quality handgun -- certainly much less than the pistols Conyers implies are "junk guns." Therefore, we cannot help but wonder if this was just the babbling of the uninformed, or an intentional ploy. The bill also says that it shall be "unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a junk gun" beginning "on the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act." However, junk to Congress is a tool to others. So, there is an exception for police officers and government agencies within HR 116. The police, and federal agents, will get to keep their hide-out (and throw away?) guns. It's just us normal folk that might have to give them up. THEY BRAG ABOUT THIS In an administration press release last week, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) -- a federal agency that encourages private investment in Russia and some 140 other developing nations and emerging markets worldwide -- announced that: ". . . since 1971, OPIC has supported $107.8 billion worth of investments that will [maybe, someday] generate $52.8 billion in U.S. exports and create more than 225,000 American jobs." Right! And they act like they're proud of this, too. But, as with most government programs, anytime you run the numbers, you want to snatch their checkbook away from them. Figure it out: They have supported $107.8-billion in investments for a return of 225,000 American jobs. Damn good of 'em, isn't it! That makes the jobs worth $479,000.00 each. Obviously, this is not a very good return on investment. If you've got the stomach for it, you can find the full report at: gopher://198.80.36.82:70/00s/current/ news/latest/97011002.wlt TOTAL HANDGUN REGISTRATION Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings is going after American handguns big time. His HR 186 calls for complete registration of all handguns in the country within 2 years of enactment of the bill. Failure to register any and all handguns requires the first time scofflaw to be "imprisoned not less than 1 year." Or, for serious violators, "the violator shall be imprisoned not less than 12 years." A "serious" violator is listed as anyone with "2 or more of the following conditions:" Two or more unregistered handguns. Or, a "high caliber" handgun -- "greater than 0.22." Or, anyone previously convicted of a felony. Or, the handgun "was readily accessible to the violator at the time of the violation." Later in the bill, Hastings evidently changes his mind though. Section 3 sets the penalty for failure to register at a fine of "not more than $250,000, imprisoned not less than 15 years, or both." And, the court may not suspend a sentence, or impose a probationary sentence. Obviously, Rep. Hastings has had a rather limited existence. This bill, were it to become law, would make about 50% of the population of quite a few states "serious" violators. Tell them so. HATE GROUP FUNDING The "Hate Group Public Funding Exclusion Act," HR 207, presents a very interesting scenario. It authorizes the Secretary of HUD to "make organizations controlled by individuals who promote prejudice or bias based on race, religion, or ethnicity ineligible for assistance" under government programs. So, if the bill passes, the Secretary of HUD will have the power to cut off "any contract, grant, loan, cooperative agreement, insurance or guarantee of a loan, mortgage, or pool of mortgages, or other form of financial assistance." In other words, anyone can be cut off. Just list them as a member of a hate group. Now, taken on face value, this isn't really a bad idea. There are quite a few organizations receiving government funds that quite obviously work against one or more segments of society. So, they should be cut off from taxpayer funding. Great! So who gets to pick the organizations? Not us, obviously. "The Secretary shall determine"! Well, read between the lines here, folks. "The Secretary" will then need to investigate all groups to determine which could be hate groups. And, the Secretary would also need to keep good records on such groups so as to be able to prove the accusation in court. As written, this bill is devoid of guidelines. Therefore, it provides great latitude for oppressive political mischief by the Secretary of HUD. For that reason, it should be put in the round file. A LETTER TO NEWT Mister Speaker, twice recently, you have stood up publicly and admitted that there may have been mistakes made in the way you financed your series of political science college classes. The determination that those contributing intentionally sent money for the production of that series of lessons should be sufficient to all. The arguments about the use of a specific funding mechanism, however, are understandable by less than one American out of one-hundred-thousand, and are therefore only confusing the issue. So, enough already! End this "ethics" fiasco going on in the House. I found the lessons I saw to be excellent. My only question about your political science lessons is this: When do we actually get that type of government? As you know, less than 30% of the American voters trust today's federal government. There are dozens of well-founded reasons for this mistrust. For instance, America watched members of the administrative branch testify before Congress last year, and obviously lie. Yet, nothing was done. America watched the testimony in the Waco and Ruby Ridge hearings. Nothing was done when witnesses lied there, either. Where was "ethics" then? Where was justice? This is an ongoing situation. Members of Congress regularly lie to the press and to the public. And, members of other branches of government regularly lie to Congress, and to the people. Why, then, should we believe any of you? The fact is, we seldom do. Still, most of us were quite happy to see the Republicans take over Congress two years ago. We expected great changes. You started out with a bang. But, then came HR 666, HR 1710, and the others, and we felt like we were kicked in the teeth. We looked to you for freedom. What we ended up with was even more oppression of our individual liberties. The next great leader in this country will be one who practices what you teach: Individual rights, individual liberty. Freedom. You teach the doctrine of the Founding Fathers. All we ask is that you also legislate as if you were a Founding Father. But first, exert your rightful power as Speaker of the House and end this juvenile display of political treachery. All of America now knows that Rep, Jim McDermott committed a serious felony offense. Any of us committing that crime would have already been taken away in handcuffs. Therefore, the least you should do is to immediately expel him from the House. Most of America also knows that Rep. Bonior is little more than a conniving fool. He too should be swiftly punished. For the good of our country, you must define the difference between freedom of speech and public lies by an elected official -- and set strict penalties for the latter. Mister Speaker, it is time that you brought your Speaker's Mace to the floor of the House of Representatives and did a little House cleaning. For, if those like McDermott -- obvious felons -- go without swift punishment, how in the world can you ever expect the average American citizen to respect either Congress or any of its laws? And when that simple task is accomplished, Mister Speaker, please practice what you preach and start on resurrecting the more difficult: Our liberty. EX POST FACTO LAWS It seems unbelievable that any of our representatives in Congress would think an amendment to the Constitution is necessary to prevent retroactive laws, but at least one does. H.J. Res. 18 is a "'Citizen's Tax Protection Amendment', proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit retroactive taxation." The proposed amendment declares: "Congress shall pass no law increasing taxes or fees which takes effect prior to its enactment." This amendment is unnecessary. Our Constitution already has an ex post facto provision. What is apparently necessary is a law or Constitutional amendment to immediately imprison any Member of Congress proposing a bill that is contrary to the Constitution. For more on retroactive laws, see the December 20, 1996 issue (#14) of "Heads Up." KEEPING SLICK We certainly hope that a Member of Congress is not trying to pave the way for the Clinton, Clinton & Gore team to run for another term. But, one representative may be intending just that. Rep. Serrano introduced a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 19) to repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment, and "thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President." Yeah! That's all we need; another term for the Slickster & Co. The Clintons already think of themselves as the new Roosevelts. The administration pushes socialism, loads us down with regulations, and stresses strong federal enforcement of everything. In fact, the Clintons even mimic the Roosevelts in their personal lives. . . . No, what we need is strict term limits for everyone in government -- Congressional aids included. Therefore, this resolution is dead on arrival. BIG BROTHER GOES DIGITAL Two years ago, the FBI informed Congress that it needed equipment to tap 1,500,000 American telephones simultaneously. That, of course, raised a few eyebrows around the country. You see, the request for the ability to bug one and a half million American telephones was up just a tad from the 1993 actual wiretaps. There were just under 1,200 wiretaps for all police departments, in all of the United States combined, in 1993. . . . But Congress, being overpopulated with ex-prosecutors and lawyers, gave the Department of Justice a big chunk of money to develop the new spying equipment anyway. Furthermore, Congress also mandated that telephone companies cooperate by building into their new digital equipment systems a means for government to quickly tap into citizens' telephones. In a surprise move last week, the FBI lowered its wiretap requirements considerably. Now, they say they want the ability to bug 60,000 American telephones simultaneously. Towards that end, the FBI is demanding that telephone companies quickly retrofit their new digital equipment. Why the change of heart? Who knows, really. But, in practice, the FBI does not currently have the personnel to do even a thousand standard wiretaps simultaneously. On the other hand, the price recently came down on some very good automated computer equipment. And, the FBI's friends in the National Security Agency have extensive experience using that type of computer equipment to scan telephone conversations. So, we can probably look for the sixty- thousand number to rise back up to one-million (or more) as soon as this trial run is completed. REPAIR JOB Georgia Rep. Bob Barr introduced a bill (HR 26) to "provide that the firearms prohibition applicable by reason of a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction do not apply if the conviction occurred before the prohibitions became law." HR 26 is an attempt at a fix of a gun grab Congress perpetrated on the American public in the Domestic Confiscation gun law passed late last year. Really though, it would have been much better to repeal the complete law. This "fix" presents a problem. With that retroactive clause, the Domestic Confiscation law was clearly unconstitutional and would have been killed by the courts eventually. If HR 26 passes, all bets are off for the courts knocking out the rest of the law. A bill we should support is HR 27, the "Citizen's Self-Defense Act of 1997." The intent of the bill is: "To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right." The bill also provides for attorney's fees and injunctive relief if a citizens rights under this bill are violated by an agent of government. That's a very welcome sight. IT WASN'T LIBERAL House Ethics Committee Special Counsel James Cole gave his public report on Speaker Newt Gingrich today. And what a shame it was! Stripping the pure unadulterated gobbledygook concerning tax exempt organizations from the report, there was a very strong lesson for those of us working towards a Constitutional form of government. Let's examine some of what the Ethics Committee told us today: First, the teaching of the history of the United States, from the viewpoint of the Founding Fathers, is no longer an acceptable activity for a tax exempt organization. Second, teaching the ideals of freedom and liberty professed by the Founding Fathers is also no longer a practice allowable to a tax exempt organization. Liberals, of course, freely teach their socialism in every tax exempt college and university in the country. So too, do tax exempt labor unions, and dozens of far-left activist organizations. That's different! It is the teaching of those concepts which originally made this country great that now seem to be forbidden for tax exempt organizations. How in hell did this country get so far to the left that unless you teach socialism you are attacked? For, dear reader, that is exactly what this is all about. What Cole said, using a few thousand words of lawyer-speak, was: "Hey Newt! We do not like your politics, and we do not like you teaching this Founding Fathers stuff. So, we're taking you down." And so they did! And, the tax implications for the funding? That law is so screwed-up that five different Washington tax attorneys gave five different opinions. The IRS, by the way, originally approved the funding scheme. No matter if we like Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich personally, or not. This action by the ethics Committee is an affront to all Americans who support our Constitution. -- End --