HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:56:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: locusts.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Apr15.183906.13600@ms.uky.edu> uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten) writes:
>I repeat.  The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act specifically exempts guns  
>which are owned / discharged on private property.  This law (for all its  
>flaws) does not threaten you for owning firearms at your house.

What about guns taken out of your home (within 1000 ft. of a school) on the
way to a shooting range or a gunsmith? It seems to me this law threatens 
ownership, but in an indirect way (e.g. you can own, but not buy, sell, 
repair or transport a firearm.)

>... but, a point should be made that it would not matter what CA (or any  
>other state's) law was on legal ownership / carry; this is a Federal law.

It's almost pointless to ask, but from which Constitutionally delegated
power does the federal goverment derive it's authority to pass and enforce
such a law? Last time I checked, this sort of law was "reserved to the
States, respectively, or to the people."

	                                    Frank Crary
					    UC Berkeley
From: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Susan is still only thinking about herself
Date: 3 Apr 92 23:23:44 GMT
Reply-To: db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman )
Organization: Victoria University of Technology, Melb, Australia

In article <1992Apr1.194334.9798@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-2.MIT.EDU (The Terminator) writes:
>>>    Is that ALWAYS an option? 
>>
>>	It seems all too often here in talk.politics,guns to be an option
>>that is all too often ignored IMO.
>
>Your opinion is about as valuable as pair of water skis in the Sahara Desert.
>
Would you shoot someone who tried to steal your water-skis in the middle
of the Sahara Desert?

-- 
   "Leave our flies alone, you Pommy bastard!"
    Spectator at a Test match in the 1930s when an English cricketer
    was swatting at flies.
From: booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Self defense in Canada
Date: 11 Apr 92 23:43:48 GMT
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC


Canadian book on protecting human life from criminal violence
-----------------------------------------------------------

"Reasonable And Necessary"  (130pg, 8 1/2 x 11) covers all
aspects of legal protection of human life from criminal
violence in Canada. Available now, in English or French, it
covers lawful protection, legal problems, mental and
physical requirements, tactics, equipment, physiology, safety,
firearms laws, ammunition, basic and advanced defense
techniques, handguns, rifles, and shotguns. With Canada's
constantly-rising violent crime rates, this is
obviously a very desirable book for any firearm owner who might
be forced to protect himself or his family during a
violent crime, and before the police can possible arrive.
$18 retail postpaid; discount for dealers; from:
David W Young, Box 312, Roxboro PQ H8Y 3K4
[Ph: (514) 685-5116]

-------------------------------------------------------------

I have no connection to D. Young in any way, I just saw
this description in NFA's Point Blank publication.




-- 
Greg Booth BSc                        | Diligentia-Vis-Celeritas
BCAA-PCDHF-BCWF-NFA-NRA-IPSC-BCFSS    |  	Incolumitas
Motorola Mobile Data Division         | 
booth@mdd.comm.mot.com CGB003 at X400MRP

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx02.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: LA LAW FAIR TO GUN OWNERS?  NOT!
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:36:20 GMT
Distribution: na
X-Bytes: 

In article <1992Apr10.032749.720@athena.mit.edu> sybok@m4-035-8.MIT.EDU  
(The Terminator) writes:
> Just in case you missed it, we pro-gunners have been raped again by
> the anti-gun nazis controlling the media.  Tune in LA Law.  (NOT!)   
There's
> a case brought by a black man who's been denied the RKBA by the "housing
> authority."  The rich boy lawyer working for the LA LAW firm makes  
cracks about
> how the black man has received free defense from a "white"--the  
representative
> of "Americans for Firearms."  (He insinuates that this organization is 
> exploiting the man.)  He spews out the HCI propaganda about how a gun
> is "42 times as likely to kill someone in the house than someone you  
don't
> know" and all that load of shit--and the pro-gun attorneys don't object
> and counter with their own evidence.  (Yeah, right!)  The script writers
> then have the black man get shot by gang members when reaching for his
> pistol.  Like gangs would be affected by gun control in the first  
place!!
> The black guy is also accused of shooting at random shadows assuming  
they're
> burglars--a smear on all gun owners.  This really takes the cake, and  
not
> a week after a "redneck" wearing an "NRA-type" cap walks into a  
restaurant
> on "Beverley Hills 90210" and threatens some lead bitch on the show with
> his shotgun.  At one point she said, "All I saw was a monster with a  
gun."
> Sarah Brady must be wet with pleasure.

In the end of the episode the man was killed (off screen) trying to use  
his gun to defend himself from an assault by gang members.  The judge  
ruled that the "housing authority" had not cleared the gun ban with HUD  
and that it was invalid due to this technicality; but his closing  
statement admonished the pro-gun side.

The "40 times more likely to be used against someone you know, 6 times  
more likely to be used against yourself than an intruder" (or whatever the  
exact quote was) quote - besides being based on methodologically flawed 20  
year old obsolete research - was really extraneous to the case.  When the  
"pro-gun" attorneys heard this quote given - with no supporting expert  
witnesses or anything - they just shrugged with a look like 'we know all  
that anti-gun stuff is true'.  It was quite obvious that this  
misinformation was included solely for the producers of the show to make  
an anti-gun statement.

A major theme of the particular segment of this episode was the belittling  
of the charge that gun control is (historically) racially motivated.  The  
pro-gun attorneys actually did a decent job of proving this; but the LA  
LAW people were making it out to be a big insult to minorities that "white  
rural" people would dare to speak out for civil rights and liberties.

I missed the Beverly Hills 90210 episode, but it sounds like the usual  
garbage.

RIK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (R.L.Taylor KB2OOA)
Subject: Re: Fire fighters and whatifs  (Was Re: Sanity arrives ...)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 10:49:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.233526.8883@matilda.vut.edu.au> db@matilda.vut.edu.au (David Bowman ) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.133214.2390@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:

>>P.S. Or perhaps the Fire Departments in Australia have practices
>>resembling my city Fire Department - and also waste their time
>>on "Henry-type hypotheticals" and "whatifs"?

>Well Henry my old mate, you make a good point. We have fire departments
>to worry about what ifs. We don't expect each citizen to own a fire truck and
>firefighting equipment. In much the same way we have police to worry about
>what ifs on the criminal front.... your analogy does not help your case.

Gee, we have a fire department in my town, too.  But I still have smoke
detectors in my house, and fire extinguishers in my kitchen and my car.
To do otherwise would be pretty stupid, IMO.  Fire department response
time (like police response time) can be several minutes...longer if they're
already busy with another fire (crime).  Guess I should just let my house
burn down while I wait?


---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@ ---<--@            *
                                                    _ _ /|      *  *  *
                                Ack Pffft Thwerrp!  \'o.O'       * * *
                                                    =(___)=  * * * O * * *
Roberta Taylor  KB2OOA        | rlt@gummo.att.com      U         * * *
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ  |                                 *  *  *
                              | Member, Unorganized Militia of     *
 NRA/CCRKBA/SAF - Life Member |    The People's Republic of        |
   GOA - Annual Member        |          New Jersey              \ |
                                                                  \| /
Would the last American to leave New Jersey please bring the flag? |/
                                                                   |/ 
@----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}  @----->}   ______|______
From: akcs.kennedy@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Edward A. Kennedy, Jr.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: And they called it a "Police Riot!"
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:00:04 CDT
Keywords: rodney king / chicago '68 convention

Just another slant on the Rodney King case.
 
In 1968, here in Chicago, there was a convention, the Democratic
national convention.  There were also anti-war demonstrators
trying to break up that convention.  In fact there were a hell 
of a lot of anti-war demonstrators.  They far outnumbered the
police.
 
Now the police say the anti-war demostrators were not all that
peaceful, that some of them had armed themselves with nasty 
little weapons, like baseballs with spikes driven through them
that could put a man's eye out when thrown.  The demonstrators
denied it.  I not know.  I was not there.
 
The Chicago Police used their bataans fairly freely in that melee,
and even a reproter or two were hit, but there was nothing approach-
ing the systematic beating administered to Rodney King that night
in Los Angeles where five or six people gathered around one poor
unfortunate while he was methodically beaten almost senseless.  Nor
was there any rumor about any of the police having *mocked* any of
the participants in the hospital afterwords.  (I remember there 
being a few injuries, but I think the cumulative total of all the
injuries suffered by all the participants, here in Chicago, that
night, was less than those suffered by only one man twenty-three
years later in Los Angeles!)
 
I have watched the footage of the Chicago scene many times.  I do
not know whether anyone was throwing spiked baseballs, but I do
believe was that the situation presented far greater dangers for
the men in blue than anything I saw in the Rodney King beating.
 
Yet when the commission finished its report of the Chicago incident,
they called it a "Police Riot."
 
"The times they are a changing!" (--Bob Dylan)
"Yes, Bob, but are you sure it is for the better?" (--Ed Kennedy)
 
  
-Ed     akcs.kennedy@ddsw1.MCS.COM  or
        akcs.kennedy@vpnet.chi.il.us
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Subject: Re: Sanity arrives to this group! Welcome back Susan!
Organization: Computer Services Centre, Australian National University
Date: 14 Apr 92 22:07:49 GMT

cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:

>As quoted from <1992Apr13.025017.10051@ncsu.edu> by hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer):

>>   Another wommin proves that she either can't read, or that she is
>> incapable of distinguishing between being the victim of criminal assault
>> and provoking a fight.  If she means what she says (hard to believe)
>> then she really is saying that a rape victim shouldn't resist, but 
>> instead just don't protect her/his "honour", swallow his/her price
>> and let the rape proceed.  Otherwise the victim would be guilty of
>> "provoking a fight".

>That's EXACTLY what she's saying.  She's already explicitly said that gays and
>minorities should "pity" skinheads trying to kill them rather than resist. It's
>obviously her point of view that one's mere existence can be a provocation. It
>is that sort of assumption which underlies the holocaust and a dozen other
>egregious acts of wanton slaughter....

	Did Susan explicitly state that "minorities should "pity" skinheads
trying to kill them rather than resist" Christopher or are you assuming 
something which she never said?

	I think its the later.  As far as I can tell, Susan has never 
suggested that.  What she has suggested is that indeed, people who do
attack others because of some imagined prejudice should be pitied, _not_
that they shouldn't be resisted.

	If you can't provide a direct quote, as someone has suggested to
Dave upon occassion, "put up or shut up" Christopher.


--
Brian Ross__________________________________________________________________
	"If it is dangerous to suppose that government is always right, it
will sooner or later be awkward for public administration if most people
suppose that it is always wrong."______________________________J.K.Galbraith
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx03.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:57:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
X-Bytes: 

A question:  Now evidence is coming out that Mr. Perot is NOT so ANTI-RKBA  
as we had thought (and maybe is not too bad at all) EXCEPT, WHY is the  
media still reporting Perot as being "in favor of gun control"...

???

(hmmm... maybe Ross is saying "I support gun control" to placate the Brady  
Bunch and get their votes; but in his mind he's thinking "control enough  
to hit your target"...)   what is the real story here?

RIK
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Subject: Re: Bomb control fails in Europe.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 01:19:19 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

The interesting thing about the failure of bomb control is that bombs
are *already* illegal world-wide - a much more severe condition than
gun control proponents advocate when they suggest nation-wide gun
prohibition. If world-wide prohibition of bombs doesn't work, how will
nationwide prohibition of guns work?
-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: Getting the gun to your car and breaking the law
Keywords: law gun car
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:44:48 GMT

>This information is based on the fact that you can carry the gun, locked or
>unlocked, on your property, but once you leave that property, you must have
>a CCW or live in a state where it doesn't matter.  Seems like a real
>concern to me.

In a fair number of states, carrying in a gun case to a target range
is not prohibited, even where (as in Missouri) open carry (say on your
belt) *is* prohibited.  (Missouri seems to be getting a CCW system,
but last time I was there, concealed carry was illegal and open carry
was in a legal gray area.  If you were walking into a gun store or range,
you'd probably be okay, but not if you were walking into a shopping mall with
the gun on a belt.)

Yes, there are some states, such as Massachusetts, in which NO form of
handgun carry in any form is allowed without a license.  If you were moving
out of state, however, the following option exists.  The Federal Firearms
Owners Protection Act says that you are allowed to carry an unloaded firearm
in your trunk from a state in which you can legally own the firearm to
a destination state in which you can legally own the firearm, regardless
of the laws of the intervening states.  In MA, the definition of a gun
is something "which can or can readily be converted to expel a shot or bullet".
Thus, if you owned an auto pistol, you could field strip it into as many
parts as possible, and carry them *individually* to your trunk.  Since the
carrying offence in MA only applies if you move the weapons, and you never
carried a functional or almost functional weapon, you'd be safe.  Once the
trunk was closed and you were under way, the federal law would protect you.
Note that the key here is that while federal law defines the *frame* to
be a firearm and everything else just to be parts, MA law defines
the firearm *functionally*.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: uk09365@nx21.mik.uky.edu (robert i kesten)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:18:34 GMT
X-Bytes: 

A few comments and questions about the GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT

#1.  It does not apply (possession or discharge provisions) to non-school  
private property in the zones.
#2.  It does not apply to colleges and universities (specifies schools as  
elementary and secondary)
#3.  If you are licensed to carry the possession restriction does not  
apply.
#4.  If you live in a state with no license provision; you can only carry  
a firearm in a school zone if it is not loaded and is in a locked  
container or a locked firearms rack on a motor vehicle.  The act seems  
quite clear that this is the case because it only recognizes licenses  
which are granted by law enforcement authorities after verification of the  
individual's qualifications.
#5.  I'm not sure if their is any legal distinction between "rack ON a  
motor vehicle" and "rack IN a motor vehicle".  Perhaps a trip to Black's  
Law Dict. or something like that is in order.  Is it possible that only an  
external rack would be legal; or is this meant to protect motorcyclists?
#6.  Although many states and communities require police to carry  
(concealed) off duty; are they considered to be acting in their official  
capacity as such?  If not, are off-duty police and other law enforcement  
officers potentially violating the law?
#7.  No provision is made in the discharge restrictions to exempt  
discharge of a firearm for lawful defense of person or property.  Does  
this mean that a person using a firearm in self defense off private  
property could, even if justified, be busted for violating the GFSZ Act?
#8.  The penalties are not 5 years and $5k but up to those levels (ie.  
they are maximums).  The penalties are not supposed to run concurrent to  
other sentences.  They will enhance a sentence by those amounts.
#9.  Big question:  is this law being enforced anywhere?  I have not seen  
it enforced here and I keep pretty good track of the criminal court  
reports in the newspaper.  I have also seen none of the signs which the  
law endorses.  The law might have been repealed; but I doubt that as my  
text came from the most recent USC update packet in the Law Library.  I  
think the following are more likely, either:  A. No appropriations have  
been made to enforce this law, B. the feds are waiting to give as many  
states as possible a chance to pass state level GFSZ laws using the  
federal law as a model, C. the states are not enforcing either due to  
jurisdictional problems or opposition to the law, D. the law is being  
enforced quietly in selected areas and/or as an enhancement to other  
violations, E. the law is being tested in some obscure court case...

Robert I. Kesten
From: feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Lawmaster Case in Tulsa OK
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:12:33 GMT
Organization: DAFCO: OS/2 Software Support & Consulting

lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) writes:

>In article <1154@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
>>Has anyone heard any more on the BATF's complete trashing of John
>>Lawmaster's home.
>>
>>Has the search warrant affidavit been released?
>> 
>>Has BATF paid damamges?
>>
>>Has *anything* constructive been accomplished so far?

I sent copies of the American Rifleman article AND the original report
of BATF abuses in the 1982 Judiciary Report on the 2nd Amendment.
Senators Coats and Lugar forwarded my letter to the BATF and promised
to let me know what they found out. Representative Long has not yet
responded to her copy of the letter.

-- 
David Feustel N9MYI, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805. (219)482-9631
= Candidate Bush wouldn't recognize principle if he were standing upon it =
From: paull@hplred.HP.COM (Robert Paull)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 16:34:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Constitutional Gun Banning
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns


Stuf about HCI deleted..........What's worse, HCI is trying to get school
textbooks to reflect their and only their point of view. BARF.
--------------
RP

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Subject: Knox NRA slate
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 10:56:24 GMT


The Neal Knox "Firearms Coalition" slate of candidates appears
to have done real well in the NRA board of directors election.
While the final results are not in, apparently it's a rout.
As Neal has said on the voice hotline, "HCI was right. The NRA
leadership has been out of touch with it's membership, and
steps are now being taken to fix that! You're in for a fight,
Sarah!"
I hope he's right. The past NRA leadership has compromised far
too many of our rights away, and allowed the opposition to 
define the terms of the debate. OH, also, Knox said that some
congressmen who used to vote with the NRA and then changed, have
now been calling the NRA looking for appointments, but are 
meeting with very cool receptions. That
sThat's GREAT!

The Second Amendment Slate which was supported by Neal Knox,
BULLET'N BOARD, and countless other groups and individuals included
the below listed names:

     Mike Beko, Amherst, Ohio;  Doug Buchanan, Fairbanks, Alaska; 
Ray Cahen, Richmond, Va.;  Sue Caplan, Madison, N.J.;  Sandra
Froman, Tucson, Ariz.;  Fred Grisser, Glen Burnie, Md.;  David
Gross, St. Louis Park, Minn.;  Don Henry, Salem, Ore.;  T.J.
Johnston, Anaheim, Calif.;  Michael Kindberg, Alpharetta, Ga.; 
Sue King, Houston, Tex;  John O'Donnell, Fort Atkinson, Wis.; 
Harold (Bud) Schroeder, Lancaster, N.Y.;  Bill Stegkemper, Vero
Beach, Fla.;  Ed Thames, Hattiesburg, Miss.;  Glen Voorhees, Jr.,
El Paso, Tex.; and Dave Workman, North Bend, Wash.

In addition Neal suggested possible additional support for the
following Nominating Committee nominees: 
Richard Atkinson, Rep. Bill Brewster, First Vice President Robert
Corbin, Sen. Larry Craig, Rep. John Dingell, Mrs. Marion Hammer,
Sen. Ted Stevens, and Mark Thompson.  

The Preliminary unofficial results have come in:

Winners in alphabetical order:
     Richard Atkinson, D.C., Mike Beko, Amherst, Ohio; Bill
Brewster: Doug Buchanan, Fairbanks, Alaska; Ray Cahen, Richmond,
Va.; Sue Caplan, Madison, N.J.; Robert Corbin; Sen Larry Craig;
Congressman John Dingell; Sandra Froman, Tucson, Ariz.;  Fred
Grisser, Glen Burnie, Md.; David Gross, St. Louis Park, Minn.; 
Marion Hammer; Don Henry, Salem, Ore.; Susan Howard, Michael
Kindberg, Alpharetta, Ga.;  Sue King, Houston, Tex; John O'Donnell,
Fort Atkinson, Wis.;  Harold (Bud) Schroeder, Lancaster, N.Y.;
Senator Ted Stevens; and Glen Voorhees, Jr. El Paso, Tex.; and Dave
Workman, North Bend, Wash. 

Too close to call:
T.J. Johnson, Bill Stegkemper, Ed Thames, Mark Thompson.

Thanks to everyone who worked to get our slate elected.  It looks
like all your efforts paid off very well

Tanya Metaksa
BULLET'N BOARD 703-971-4491

-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns