From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,dc.talk.guns
Subject: Backdoor Gun Control
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:00:40 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


The following is from the January 1993 issue of American 
Survival Guide magazine.
 
ON REALITY    
 
Back Door Gun Control
 
by Peter Alan Kasler
 
It happened again today. They got another gun off the 
streets. Not to worry that it was wrongfully taken from a 
law-abiding citizen who legally possessed it; what's 
really important is that yet another of those evil things 
is out of circulation.
 
Pardon my cynicism, but too many times I have seen law 
enforcement personnel, prosecutors, and judges serve their 
own personal and political anti-gun agendas by wrongfully 
taking a gun away from a law-abiding citizen and illegally 
refusing to return it. Their only justification seems to 
be that the greater good of anti-gunism overrides whatever 
violations of rights and other wrongs are done. It matters 
not that they are breaking the law, only that they get 
another gun off the streets.
 
How can they get away with such things? Thats exactly what 
one lawyer asked earlier today, just after his client was 
forced to accept a plea bargain that included giving up 
his gun to the county, even though they admitted no crime 
had occurred, and that the gun was rightfully his. The 
reason they can get away with such illegal and outrageous 
conduct is perhaps the most fundamental of all: money.
 
The hapless innocent in the above example - a 23-year-old 
gainfully employed, clean-cut male with no prior criminal 
history, not even a traffic ticket - was forced to make a 
choice between stipulating to the county wrongfully 
keeping the gun in exchange for dismissal of the charges, 
and insisting that the gun be returned, in which case the 
D.A. would take it to trial. Had that happened, the 
innocent young man would have spent $10,000 to $40,000 to 
prove what everyone already knew, that no violation of the 
law had occurred. But worse, after acquittal, he still 
wouldn't get the gun back. It is the government's policy 
to keep all confiscated guns, even those taken illegally. 
After spending all that money to prove himself innocent, 
the young man would then be faced with yet  another costly 
legal action - this one with far less certainty of sucess - 
all to try for the return of a $500 revolver. Some choice.
 
Don't think this is an unusual case. One man was arrested 
and charged with, among other things, having violated 
California's the new Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control 
Act of 1989. Of the original charges, two were dismissed 
before trial. Despite being exonerated of the final charge  
(after three unsuccessful attempts to convict him), the 
innocent man was financially ruined. The county refused to 
return his two firearms, even though they were completely 
legal, and he was without funds to bring an action to 
compel. That's back door gun control; they count on the 
fact that such people can't or won't spend the money to 
force the return of their rightful property.
 
One night in an upscale San Francisco Bay Area town, a 
physician was attacked by a large pickup truck that rammed 
his sports car, doing more than $4,500 damage. When the 
two vehicles came to rest and the doctor saw the other 
driver emerge and approach, he opened his door and stood, 
holding the only weapon he had, a shotgun used for trap 
and skeet. He never pointed it at the truck driver; in 
fact, he never raised it above a low-carry (muzzle down) 
position. The aggressor back-off immediately upon spotting 
the shotgun's butt stock, which was all he ever saw. 
That's when the police arrived, having been summoned by a 
nearby homeowner who had heard the collision.
 
As soon as the police car appeared, the physician placed 
the shotgun on the seat of his sports car and stepped 
back, well away from it. An officer asked if there were 
any guns; the doctor pointed to his. Upon finding four 
rounds (skeet & trap loads) in the magazine (the chamber 
was empty), an officer placed the doctor under arrest, and 
he was taken to jail. The truck driver was interviewed at 
the scene and released.
 
The doctor was charged with having a loaded firearm in a 
public place and also with brandishing that firearm. The 
two California statues he was charged with violating each 
contain self-defense exceptions, but nevertheless 
prosecution went forward. After nearly a year, and about 
$40,000 in legal expenses, a jury quickly acquitted the 
doctor of all charges. The authorities refuse to return 
his shotgun, and his only choice is another costly legal 
proceeding. Of course they know that; they assume that 
he'll just purchase another rather that throw good money 
after bad, more back door gun control.
 
In San Francisco a young couple was returning from the gun 
shop where the man's Colt Government Model had been 
repaired. The pistol was wrapped in a brown paper bag, 
carried inside the woman's purse; no laws were violated.
Upon returning home the couple encountered a couple of  
San Francisco cops who had been called by their neighbor, 
with whom there had been a quarrel. The officers asked if 
the young man had a gun; he said, "Yes, it's in her 
purse." The young woman was thereupon relieved of the 
unloaded, securely wrapped Colt pistol. Next the police 
asked if he had any others. "yes," he replied, "two old 
revolvers, up in my room." A brief search turned up the 
two guns just where he said they were. All three guns were 
confiscated, and the woman arrested for carrying a 
concealed weapon. The man was neither arrested nor charged 
with any violation.
 
Unfortunate legal advice caused the young woman to be 
convicted (unnecessarily so, as she'd done nothing 
illegal), and the Colt she'd been carrying to be lost 
pursuant to California law. The young man- who'd done 
nothing wrong and, indeed, had not been charged with any 
violation- went to the SFPD seeking the return of his 
revolvers. He was told to forget it, he'd never get them 
back. His only option was legal action that, at best, 
would cost perhaps ten times their value. Back door gun 
control at its best.
 
These are but four of the many cases in which the 
insidious governmental policy of refusing to return 
wrongfully confiscated firearms has been operated. 
Anti-gun bias, fueling an outrageous abuse of power by 
public officials, is not an unusual thing, nor is 
regulation by confiscation these days.
 
Back door gun control Flourishes.
 
END
 
This is the debut of a new monthly column appearing in 
this magazine by Peter Alan Kasler, self-defense 
authority, firearms author and director of the Threat 
Management Institute, in Sonoma, California, a private 
corporation providing self-defense training for civilians 
and law enforcement personnel.
----
Good job, Peter!

Frank Ney N4ZHG EMT-A  LPVa NRA ILA GOA CCRTKBA "M-O-U-S-E"
Commandant and Acting President, Northern Virginia Free Militia
Send e-mail for an application and more information
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of
individuals...I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, 
subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating
in their purpose."
        - Robert Heinlein, in a 1949 letter concerning "Red Planet"
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns