HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Supreme Court allows New Jersey gun seizure law
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:07:41 GMT
Keywords: supreme court, legal, gun control, social issues,
	state government, government

Copyright 1992 by <UPI>

Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper newsgroup
clari.news.law.supreme.

For more info on ClariNet, write to info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal
by a Florida man whose guns were confiscated in New Jersey, letting
stand New Jersey's law that allows automatic forfeiture of unlicensed
handguns.
	The court, without comment, refused to consider the case, Mark
Sholtis claimed his constitutional rights were violated by the state's
refusal to return two loaded handguns found inside his van after he was
stopped for speeding on the New Jersey Turnpike.
	Sholtis argued that under Florida law, where he lived, he could
possess the weapons.
	But he had no permit to carry the guns in New Jersey and was charged
with state weapons violations.
	Because he had no prior criminal record, Sholtis was allowed to
complete an education program in exchange for having the charges
dropped.
	After charges were dropped, a New Jersey trial court -- acting on
Sholtis' request -- ordered that his .38-caliber and .357-caliber Smith &
Wesson handguns be returned through a Florida law enforcement agency.
	New Jersey officials appealed, but an appeals court also sided with
Sholtis.
	The Supreme Court of New Jersey then reversed, find that state law
mandates forfeiture of illegally possessed weapons without further
proceedings.
	The state's highest court said that under New Jersey law illegally
possessed guns are ``contraband,'' and as such are subject to forfeiture
without allowing the owner to appeal or obtain a hearing.
	Attorneys for Sholtis claim the New Jersey law, which is similar to
other state laws, violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
 ------
_9_1_-_1_9_2_1 _M_a_r_k _J_o_s_e_p_h _S_h_o_l_t_i_s _v_s_. _S_t_a_t_e _o_f _N_e_w _J_e_r_s_e_y

-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Organization: The Cat Factory
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:44:39 GMT

In article <2659@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:

}If the gun grabbers and liberal do-gooders get their way, the only
}protection a woman will be allowed to carry is a condom.

If the conservative sex-police get their way she won't be allowed that,
either.  Note that these things are not mutually exclusive.

The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: hollombe@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp                   Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (310) 450-9111, x2483     No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA  90405
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Carry around the country (new)
Date: 14 Oct 92 15:48:37 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <RTARAZ.92Oct12110535@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> rtaraz@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Ramin Taraz) writes:
>A while ago I asked about a way to carry my pistol around the country
>on my motorcyle.
>Thanx to many people who responded, I now know that I can carry it if:
>1. I have a permit for every state that I pass through (impossible)
>2. carry it unloaded in a locked case
>3. take it apart  and carry the parts in different compartments.
>My only reason to carry my piston with me was for protection reasons,
>just in case that I need to protect myself in the country side.  If
>the gun is unloaded, locked, or taken apart it would be a lot of help!
>(maybe I should post this to i.f.p also.)  
>What do have to do to get some protection around this country!? 

I'll recomend something I recomended to a bicyclist a few months
ago. Carry a bicycle *polo* mallet. From a motorbike, such a weapon
is truely awesome at dealing with four legged vermin and useful
against two legged vermin in pickup trucks. :-)

You might get some funny looks, but the polo mallet shouldn't get
you in trouble with the law anywhere in the US, it's legitimate
sporting equipment. (No doubt there's a brain damaged law against
it *somewhere* however.)

Another option is to get a dog. Training the dog to ride the bike
is easy. Training him to jump through the window of threatening
pickups is a bit harder. :-)

Your other option is to *break the law* and carry a gun and hope
you don't get caught. I won't recomend this, it's your decision,
and your life. It's not *really* that dangerous out there, except
in a few areas that it would be wise to avoid in central cities.
Rural roadways are about as safe as your front yard. (Well *my*
front yard, I don't know about yours.)

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Subject: NRA ratings, party affiliation, and voting strategy 
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:37:07 GMT

here in idaho we have a senate race that's in a dead heat right
now.  stallings, a conservative democrat is an NRA A.  his opponent,
kempthorne, is NRA B.  given an entire letter grade difference
the choice is obvious, but it did cross my mind...

what if kempthorne was an A-?  would it be better to keep the
democrats (who are as a whole antis) from "stacking" the senate
and voting for an A- candidate over an A???  just a thought.

drew

p.s. its refreshing to have left ohio - land of the perennial
"F" candidates Howard "I just want those guns!" Metzenbomb and
John "I left my common sense in outer space" Glenn.  here its
"gee, do i vote for this pro-gun candidate or that pro-gun
candidate???" 
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***

Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: NSW homicides
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:29:56 GMT

In article <LAMBERT.92Oct6170742@henna.spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au>,
lambert@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au (Tim Lambert) writes:

> >>>>> On Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:02:44 GMT, cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter) said:
> > (Tim Lambert) writes:
> >>(21
> 
> > Huh!?  19 degrees of freedom!  That's enough to least-square fit an elephant!
> 
> Explain to us how 19 df allow you to "fit an elephant".

Well, since you haven't seen this "proof" before, go to your library and look
up "Least Square Fitting of an Elephant", by James Wel (U. of Delaware),
CHEMTECH, Feb 1975, pg 128.

It's really quite humorous! ;-)  A "good" fit to the elephant requires
about 30 terms, but you can do quite well with 20 degrees of freedom.

> >> data values less two fitted parameters) in the Chi square statistic.
> >> Should I have use 18 df?
> 
> > I suspect you're drawing meaningless conclusions from your pseudo-
> > scientific method...
> 
> Your suspicions are incorrect.

Oh!  Now *this* is convincing evidence....

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
-------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Subject: Re: No Difference Between the Parties, Part 3
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:45:03 GMT

In article <7048@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.221529.27659@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, clc5q@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:
>> Here is a summary by party of the GOA ratings of all House of Representatives
>> candidates in the 1992 elections:
>
>> Total of A+, A, A- :  152 Republicans,  49 Democrats.
>> Total of F+, F, F- :   22 Republicans, 117 Democrats.
>> Total of D+, D, D- :   12 Republicans,  24 Democrats.
>
>> Seems to be a difference between the parties.
>
>Are you truly such a single-issue voter?

Explain the logic that leads to this conclusion. I was responding to
Libertarian demagoguery on the subject of gun control re Democrats and
Republicans, so I limited myself to that one issue.

>
>Democrats and Republicans BOTH want chunks of our individual liberties.
>They just want different chunks.
>
>Show me a similar rating breakdown on the issues of personal privacy,
>religious freedom, censorship of adult materials, or equal rights for
>all non-criminal citizens.

As you have been arguing about original intent with Mr. Wojcik recently,
perhaps you would like to establish that the Democrats come closer to
the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution than the Republicans
on these issues.

Democrats seem to think that a voucher system for education funding is
a violation of the 1st Amendment's prohibition of an establishment of
religion, common sense and Supreme Court rulings to the contrary being
ignored, of course. DO you think the Framers would agree with them, or
with the Republicans?

Do we have evidence of the Framers fighting anti-pornography laws?

Did the Framers establish racial quota systems and call them affirmative
action?

These are 3 examples out of hundreds that I could give in which the
Democrats are out of touch with the Constitution, and the Republicans
are not, on the very subjects you chose.  Care to substantiate any
counter-examples?

As you are willing to argue original intent or original understanding on
this newsgroup with respect to the 2nd Amendment, I assume you have enough
integrity and consistency to apply the same approach to issues such as
pornography.

>
>Statists are statists.  The difference between the Democrats and the
>Republicans is a lot like the difference between Hitler and Stalin:
>one tyrant was Russian, and the other one wasn't.

Assertions are wonderful --- the stuff that makes the net go around. I
have spent time actually tabulating Congressional votes and summarizing
the results of GOA and NRA ratings, etc.  The Libertarians just continue
to make unsupported assertions.  Feel free to provide some actual analysis
on one of your chosen topics, with Congressional votes, etc.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is seldom that any liberty is lost all at once." David Hume
|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)
From: betz@gozer.idbsu.edu (Andrew Betz)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Yet further tripe from Richard Reeves
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:41:44 GMT
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club

In article <7187@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>A Massachusetts resident needs a certificate from the police to buy
>a gun and must go through an identification and investigation process.
>For a handgun (not a long gun) the citizen must demonstrate need and
>reason for gun ownership -- and in many cities and towns, self-defense
>is not an acceptable reason.  The penalty for illegal possession of a
>handgun is one year in prison.
>
is this really true?  you have to cite a reason to want a gun?
"to exercise my second amendment rights" doesn't count, i take it?
sounds like mass. is turning into another sarah brady utopia a la
NYC, chicago, detroit, and D.C.

drew
--
betz@gozer.idbsu.edu
*** brought into your terminal from the free state of idaho ***
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Perot
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:19:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.154716.1335@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> In article <bjones.718036828@dhostwo>, bjones@convex.com (Brad Jones) writes:
>> 
>> I've heard him say that the answer to crime is suspension/elimination
>> of the Second Amendment.  I've also seen it in print, but I haven't
>> kept any copies.
>> 
> 
> 	Perhaps to show how little is known about Perot, *I* had heard that he
> was pro-gun ...
> 
> 	Brandon Cope

Much like Slick Willie, Perot has a habit of talking out of both sides of his
mouth at the same time.
--Ray Cote
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
From: mjp@austin.ibm.com (Michael Phelps)
Subject: Re: So... Why have a standing military?
Originator: mjp@bwa.kgn.ibm.com
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 15:14:01 GMT
Reply-To: mjp@vnet.ibm.com (Michael J. Phelps)
Organization: IBM Kingston NY


In article <84481@bcsaic.boeing.com>, rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik,snake) writes:
> In article 29829@ucsu.Colorado.EDU, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> >any part of it they see fit. The Second Amendment asserts that the militia
> >is necessary, and protects its _existance_ by assuring that the people
> >can arm themselves.
> 
> I think that we are in basic agreement here (except maybe on speech act theory :-),
> but we disagree over the question of whether the government must allow those arms
> to be owned privately.  In other words, we disagree on the method of implementation.
> I contend that state militias in 20th century America, such as they are, no longer
> rely on participants to bring their own arms in service of the country.  Whether or
> not the 18th century framers of the 2nd had this in mind is now moot.
> 

Rick, i think that your interpretation works only if we assume that the goverment
*IS* the country.  I contend that "the people" are the country.  In fact, if the
people should ever choose to defend their country against the goverment, your
interpretation would allow the goverment to refuse to arm them.. oops!

> >By the way, do you think the text of the Amendment (specifically, the
> >clause, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
> >infringed.") protects _something_ from infringement? If so, _what_? Keep
> >in mind that this thing could not be state-organized militias, since
> >the Congress "infringed" on this within a year of the ratification of the
> >Second Amendment.
> 
> What can't be infringed is the collective right of the people to bear arms in an
> organized militia.  Whether or not this was the original interpretation is now
> moot.  The spirit of the 2nd--the collective defense of the nation--is more than
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^******^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> adequately met by our numerous military organizations.  Whether or not Congress
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "infringed" this right by cementing federal control over state militias is a 
> matter of interpretation.  I tend to side with the Federalists on this issue,
> and you prefer an Antifederalist interpretation.
> 

Same as above; unless nation == goverment (who controls the military??) I don't
see how this can hold.

> -----
> Disclaimer:  Opinions expressed above are not those of my employer.
> 
>     Rick Wojcik   (rwojcik@atc.boeing.com)   Seattle, WA

No, i'm not a revolutionary, but it *IS* the ultimate check on goverment.

Michael (who speaks for himself; ibm doesn't have opinions!) ..
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Yet further tripe from Richard Reeves
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:51:12 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct8.165251.15840@cci632.cci.com>, sjo@cci632.cci.com (Steve Owens) writes:
> >The difference, then, is gun control. A Canadian needs a certificate
> >from the police to buy a gun and must go through an identification
> >and investigation process, during which the citizen must demonstrate
> >need and reason for gun ownership - and self-defense is not an
> >acceptable reason. The penalty for illegal possession of a handgun
> >is two years in prison.
> 
> 	So if the ownership of guns is resticted, less people will
> want to kill themselves?  Wrong. 

Want to prove this easily?

A Massachusetts resident needs a certificate from the police to buy
a gun and must go through an identification and investigation process.
For a handgun (not a long gun) the citizen must demonstrate need and
reason for gun ownership -- and in many cities and towns, self-defense
is not an acceptable reason.  The penalty for illegal possession of a
handgun is one year in prison.

Has this affected the number of gun deaths in Massachusetts?
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Xref: sparky talk.politics.guns:21910 misc.legal:18352
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Leonard Levy, "Original Intent", etc.
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:09:51 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Oct8.062730.1821@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes:

> >> Well, it should be noted that if the original understanding of the Second
> >> Amendment was *not* to reserve a right to individuals, the word "people"
> >> in the Second Amendment means something far different from the word
> >> "people" in the First Amendment.

> >How do you reconcile this with the several Supreme court opinions
> >stating explicitly that the term People means everyone ( more or less ).

> Okay, I get it: you folks are trying to tell me that it's a bad idea, when
> posting a response that's cross-posted to talk.politics.guns, to write
> long sentences. Consider the lesson learned.

No.  It's just that after years of arguing about the Second Amendment,
we tend to skim over the first clause of any long sentence as a minor
declaratory preamble, and concentrate on the portion that appears after
the comma.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns,alt.dcom.telecom
From: jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren)
Subject: Re: Leonard Levy, "Original Intent", etc.
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:19:00 GMT

From article <1992Oct6.203942.23374@eff.org>, by mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin):
> In article <1992Oct6.191516.8260@unislc.uucp> jdw@unislc.uucp (James Warren) writes:
>>From article <1992Oct6.152435.15187@eff.org>, by mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin):
>>> 
>>> Well, it should be noted that if the original understanding of the Second
>>> Amendment was *not* to reserve a right to individuals, the word "people"
>>> in the Second Amendment means something far different from the word
>>> "people" in the First Amendment.
>>> 
>>
>>What makes you think that they meant different things each time they used
>>the word "people"?
> 
> I didn't say I think any such thing. Is English your first language?
> 

Please accept my sincerest apology.  I had just read my local newspaper
and was not seeing straight.  (English is my only language, but I'm not
very proficient in its use.)

> 
> --Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mike Godwin,    |"Liberty resides in the rights of that person
> mnemonic@eff.org| whose views you find most odious."
> (617) 864-0665  | 
> EFF, Cambridge  |                           --John Stuart Mill
From: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Doogie Howser
Date: 11 Oct 1992 01:21:05 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cc697@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Eric Oppen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



Didn't see the episode you referred to.  Kind of frightening, though, that
people might take the positions advocated on a TV show showing a young
teenager as a medical doctor seriously, isn't it?

-- 
Note to the Constitutionally impaired:  "...the RIGHT of the people to KEEP
and BEAR arms..." means EXACTLY what it says!
Vote Libertarian, Grassroots, or any third party...the Demopublicans are a
bipartisan evil!        "Technomad"  cc697@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: boucher@csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Guns kill their owners
Date: 10 Oct 1992 18:11:09 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: omaha.csl.sri.com

Someone told me that if you have a gun in the house,
the probability is much higher that you will be shot
with it than a criminal.

I said:
  1) The original statistic is that the probability is 
     much higher that someone known to your family will
     be *killed* with it than a total stranger, which:
       a) is true of homicide in general, and is not 
          limited to guns.
       b) does not take into account thieves who were
          wounded, captured without shooting, or who 
          fled at the sight of the gun.
  2) The large majority of the killings with household
     guns were in self-defense.
  3) 99% of gun owners killed with their own weapon in their
     own home committed suicide, and that lacking a gun, 
     they could crash their car, take pills, or leap from
     somewhere high.

Now quick (before they reply) could someone please tell me
the source of this information, and give me more details?
I'm sure I was off by some, but I'd like to be able to back
up the general gist of my argument.

(Email, please)

-- 
Peter K. Boucher
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Science Lab, SRI International             Software Engineer
333 Ravenswood Ave. #EL-237                         (415) 859-3927
Menlo Park, CA  94025                               boucher@csl.sri.com
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Media coverage for Marrou/Lord (call these #'s!)
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:21:57 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


Today show would pull the same stunt Late Nite did:

Withdraw the invite the day before.  Wasted a non-refundable plane
ticket to NYC.

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
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0
 
mQCNAirUyJMAAAEEAKK/r+uYOEAGbU4w6pxwcY0h9EiB+9EELFNXIoN/q486w28i
cipfkm9NaJd1Oox24SV/JojQeukgJVied+qaZdE7mxUd9CQEru/2q2JS55h4xqdj
Ta/Gk/w9UUY+MMJfCJqRxYCbP0ENwuuWkteVsHwo2YUDlEpAOA+GiP76u4NfAAUR
tCFGcmFuayBOZXkgPG0wMTAyQHRuYy51dWNwLlVVLk5FVD4=
=wNcL
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
-- 
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
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 22:15:37 GMT

In <Bvv752.Ltw@creare.com>, Ian Brown writes:

>(Much deleted...)

>WRT economic plans: if nothing else, Clinton offers a change from the past
>12 years, during which the economy, following Reagan's and Bush's trickle
>down idea, has gone to hell in a hand basket (to borrow a cliche'.)  The
>gap between the richest people and the poorest has gotten bigger, big
>enough that the richest 1% of the population now has more money than the
>poorest 90%.

The top 1% has more than the bottom 90%?!?!  Source, please...

If that were true, then if we doubled the income tax on the rich, then we can
eliminate the income tax entirely for the lowest 90% and RAISE revenue!

I'm sure that this isn't right.  We couldn't run the government on the income
of the top 1% for more than a few days (at $4.2 billion per day).  Besides,
any economist will tell you that the bulk of income taxes come from the middle
class.  If the top 1% control that much income, then the income tax would have
to be horribly regressive.  I haven't even heard the most radical socialists
claim that the tax system is THAT regressive!

Re-check the numbers and create another class-envy argument.


Tim Irvin  j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
FLASH!  Card-carrying Libertarian attempts to solve problems realistically.
        FIlm at 11.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns