From: joeha@microsoft.com (Joseph Harper)
Subject:  Pro-gun editorial
Date: 24 Aug 92 20:46:23 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

Hello,

I have typed in the following without permission
of those involved.  All typos and mistakes are due
to my typing ability only.

While this is an excellent piece in and of itself,
please note that it was printed in the Op-Ed page
of a Seattle newspaper which has openly stated it
is anti-gun. ("To reduce violence by limiting the
availability of drugs and guns").  

I for one have sent a letter commending them for
printing our side of the argument.  I would
encourage those in the Puget Sound area to do the
same to encourage the P-I to seek balanced
coverage.  

The address is:

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
PO Box 1909 
Seattle, WA  98111-1909
==========

Reproduced without permission.

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Friday, August
21,1992; page A-15

COURTS MAKE IT HARD FOR CITIZENS TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES

By Craige A. McMillan

Retired King County Superior Court Judge John W.
Riley's recent attack on the rights of honest,
law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from
the vermin that courts have released into the
streets (Aug 13 P-I) was riddled with falsehoods. 
Those falsehoods we will come to in a moment.  But
perhaps more to the point was that such falsehoods
are being spread by someone on whose watch things
have sunk to their present, deplorable conditions.

Unlike the law-abiding, who can only seethe with
frustration as career criminals are released back
into the streets, surely Riley, as a superior
court judge, was in a position to do something
about it.  His apparent answer -- restrict the
victim's means of defense -- was not encouraging.

In contrast, responsible firearms owners have not
grown immune to the daily reports of murder and
mayhem in America.  In fact, we deplore it.  We
are saddened that millions of law-abiding citizens
have had to turn to this last line of defense to
protect their lives and property.  We are
frustrated by the hundreds of needless deaths
resulting from firearms ignorance.  And we do not
understand why we are thwarted in our efforts to
teach the basic elements of firearms safety in our
schools, despite the glaring need for such
instruction on that subject.  And finally, we are
angered by the media and entertainment industry,
which in search of the next advertising dollar
routinely portray guns as macho and glamourous,
yet care not how many young people die, as long as
one more 30-second commercial can be sold.

But we reserve our greatest contempt for those in
positions of authority who have allowed this
situation to fester and grow during their watch. 
We especially deplore the courts that routinely
accept plea bargains in lieu of prosecution, that
order suspended sentences, parole, or community
service for habitual offenders and who daily
release hardened, career criminals back out onto
the streets because there are not enough color
television sets in the jail and the poor
criminal's civil rights might be infringed.  Pity
that the victim's civil rights are never given the
same consideration by the same courts.

Riley, like all gun-banners, laments that he is
unable to persuade Congress to take action and
further restrict the actions of the innocent.  The
reason is quite simple: When forced to present
facts to support their outrageous requests, the
gun-banners have little evidence to stand on. 
Consider the measures advocated by Riley:

-- A waiting period.  Washington state already has
a waiting period for handgun purchases. 
Unfortunately, criminals don't buy their handguns;
they steal them, thereby avoiding pesky waiting
periods.  Still, gun-banners direct their energies
into frustrating the gun stores through which law-
abiding citizens obtain firearms.  Why?

-- Prohibit firearms in schools, courts, prisons,
etc.  Come now.  Washington state law already does
so.  Perhaps we need a law requiring judges to
enforce the law.

-- Ban possession of automatic AK-47s, etc. 
Really?  Washington state bans all automatic
weapons.

-- Restrict concealed weapons permits?  Please,
Judge Riley, how many people who used a firearm
and were convicted of a crime in your courtroom
ever bothered to have their background
investigated and put their fingerprints on file
with police, in order to obtain a concealed
weapons permit?  Was there one, ever?

-- Civil Liability.  Ah, yes; more business for
the courts and lawyers.  Pity that both are so
wantonly ineffective, except against the law-
abiding.  Ask any woman who has been beaten to
within an inch of her life by a man she already
had a court's protection against.  God forbid that
she should buy a firearm to protect herself.  Far
better that she should hire a lawyer and sue from
the grave.  The court, of course, will grant
leniency to her attacker, since it was only his
third offense.

In our society there are certain groups that must
be held to a higher standard of truth than the
population at large.  Courts and judges surely
make up one such case.  In a culture that has made
truth and justice the indentured servants of
political correctness, one expects attacks against
such essential freedoms as self-defense by the
outspoken fringe.  But among those sworn to uphold
the truth, those taking such egregious liberties
with it must have their views carefully examined.

Surely, though, there is one point on which Riley
scores a bullseye.  "Enhanced criminal liability
for willful violations of reasonable handgun ...
laws."  That is something lawful firearms owners
will stand up and applaud, if and when it happens. 
My question to Riley is simple:  How many of the
thugs, gang members, delinquents and career felons
infesting our community did you lock up during
your judging tenure solely because they violated
one of the many firearms laws already on the
books?

Let's face it;  What's needed is a ban on
criminals.

Craige A. McMillan is a Tacoma resident
==========

RevolverMan

joeha@microsoft.com

I do not represent my employer.