Interesting Supreme Court decision on Brady Bill at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html A messy 5-4 decision, with two concurrences and three dissents. Overturns the part of the Brady Bill that forces local officials to perform some of the administrative functions. Lots of complex commentary.
At 12:19 PM -0700 6/27/97, Bill Stewart wrote:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html A messy 5-4 decision, with two concurrences and three dissents.
Overturns the part of the Brady Bill that forces local officials to perform some of the administrative functions. Lots of complex commentary.
And Friends of Liberty (assuming that is not a trademarked property of Wired , Explorers of the Digital Frontier and Cyberspace ) should not be supporting the National Rifle Association proposal, either. One of the reasons I quit the NRA was there strong support, indeed, their strong lobbying for, a "national on-line records check." The idea is that if Joe Blow purchases a gun in Skokie, Illinois, the computerized national data base would flag that he's some sort of criminal, whether major or minor, in some other state. This national data base would undoubtedly be cross-indexed by SS numbers, aliases, etc. Partial data bases like this already exist, of course, a la the NCIC. This would take us further in the direction of a national dossier system. And the "while you wait" system, which would lead to, "Sorry, sir, your application to purchase a handgun has been declined" sorts of events, also means that vastly more people will be making queries of this system. My solution is simple: no checks whatsoever. If someone commits a crime, lock him or her up or shoot them, or whatever. But once the penalty is over, all normal rights return. The right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to own weapons, etc. (Somehow most people think it's OK that convicted felons lose their rights to vote and to have guns. (Once they're released, of course.) Do they think convicted felons no longer have religious freedom? Can no longer write as they wish? Jeesh.) The National Rifle Association has become a den of statist compromisers. It should be added to any hit lists. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Tim May wrote:
This national data base would undoubtedly be cross-indexed by SS numbers, aliases, etc.
Partial data bases like this already exist, of course, a la the NCIC. This would take us further in the direction of a national dossier system.
And the "while you wait" system, which would lead to, "Sorry, sir, your application to purchase a handgun has been declined" sorts of events, also means that vastly more people will be making queries of this system.
I expect it will be extended further on down the line. "Hold on a for a few minutes. We seem to be having some problem with your records check." Meanwhile, the local/state/federal/illuminati are on their way to apprehend the miscreant.
My solution is simple: no checks whatsoever.
I agree. Guns should be paid for in cash.
If someone commits a crime, lock him or her up or shoot them, or whatever. But once the penalty is over, all normal rights return. The right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to own weapons, etc.
(Somehow most people think it's OK that convicted felons lose their rights to vote and to have guns. (Once they're released, of course.) Do they think convicted felons no longer have religious freedom? Can no longer write as they wish? Jeesh.)
I find it interesting that they find the right to vote as dangerous as the right to own a gun. "If owning a gun could change the system, it would be outlawed." alano@teleport.com | "Those who are without history are doomed to retype it."
If someone commits a crime, lock him or her up or shoot them, or whatever. But once the penalty is over, all normal rights return. The right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to own weapons, etc.
Depends on your perspective. I can see a valid case for a penalty for say armed robbery that entails a lifetime, or 5/10/X year ban on ownership of guns. Other violent armed crime like this could also incur such a penalty as part of the sentence and I would consider this reasonable, however, banning ownership of guns for any felony is definitely not at all reasonable.
(Somehow most people think it's OK that convicted felons lose their rights to vote and to have guns. (Once they're released, of course.) Do they think convicted felons no longer have religious freedom? Can no longer write as they wish? Jeesh.)
Speech cannot harm someone, if someone has commited a violent crime and are likely to do so again, banning ownership of firearms sounds reasonable to me, of course this is not going to be an effective ban, but that is beside the point.
I find it interesting that they find the right to vote as dangerous as the right to own a gun.
Indeed, I can see no justification whatsoever for banning participation in the democratic process as an ongoing penalty for commision of crime after the main sentence is completed. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
The idea is that the criminal has received their punishment once released from prison. Any further infringements on the person's rights are unacceptable. That includes the person's Natural Right to acquire fully-automatic weapons, should he so desire. [BTW, the nature of the crime committed is irrelevant]. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred On Mon, 30 Jun 1997, Rabid Wombat wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 1997, Paul Bradley wrote:
however, banning ownership of guns for any felony is definitely not at all reasonable.
It beats being banned from possessing weapons for living in the U.K.
The idea is that the criminal has received their punishment once released from prison. Any further infringements on the person's rights are unacceptable. That includes the person's Natural Right to acquire fully-automatic weapons, should he so desire. [BTW, the nature of the crime committed is irrelevant].
Not so, I believe Kent pointed out the US statute that describes unreasonable punishment as being "cruel and unusual", banning ownership of firearms as part of the punishment for a violent crime seems perfectly reasonable to me, but foo on that anyway: punishment should fit the crime, if you commit murder or rape or any one of a number of such serious crimes I see no reason why you shouldn`t be punished cruelly. I can see the point of view which accepts serving of sentence as being the end of punishment, and I do not accept a ban on firearms as being implicit in the commision of a felony, but if a court explicitly states that part of the punishment should be a X year or lifetime ban I can accept that. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
At 7:46 AM -0700 7/1/97, Paul Bradley wrote: ...
Not so, I believe Kent pointed out the US statute that describes unreasonable punishment as being "cruel and unusual", banning ownership of firearms as part of the punishment for a violent crime seems perfectly reasonable to me, but foo on that anyway: punishment should fit the crime, if you commit murder or rape or any one of a number of such serious crimes I see no reason why you shouldn`t be punished cruelly.
The apparent meaning of "cruel and unusual" had to do with things like torture, death by starvation, death by immersion in hot oil, and other such things which some regimes had practiced. The "design goal" of all U.S. capital punishment methods is generally "quick and painless." - Hanging--very quick and very painless (the neck is snapped, and consciousness vanishes) - Firing squad--no further explanation needed (assuming multiple rounds hit the target) - Electrocution--originally designed to render subject unconscious almost immediately. Whether it does this merits discussion, but the original intent was surely for a "scientific" fast death (just as the guillotine was similarly designed) - Gas chamber--cyanide produces rapid unconsciousness - Lethal injection--the "new" scientific method. Obviously painless.
I can see the point of view which accepts serving of sentence as being the end of punishment, and I do not accept a ban on firearms as being implicit in the commision of a felony, but if a court explicitly states that part of the punishment should be a X year or lifetime ban I can accept that.
Does this mean that you would "accept" a wording which took away a released convict's ability to speak freely, or to practice the religion of his choice? ("Upon completion of your 6-month sentence for public blasphemy, you must renounce Baalism and accept the religion so ordered by the court.") Why is this any different from taking away Second Amendment rights? There is sometimes a loophole for taking away some particular right, or interfering with it in a special way, a la the language of "compelling needs." This is how the courts look at the putative conflict of rights, as in things like "the state has a compelling need to protect minors from these materials." Then there's the related language of "overbroad." But how does a lifetime, blanket ban on possession of firearms--i.e., a complete denial of Second Amendment rights--for any of tens of thousands of claimed "felonies" fit with this "compelling need" model? What's the compelling need for the state to deny Second Amendment rights for life to someone convicted of fraud or money laundering? The compelling need appears to be related to the general trend of disarming as many of the marks as possible, as soon as possible. (I understand, Paul, that you are not a U.S. citizen, but this is the framework for the current discussion.) --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Tim May writes: [lots 'o stuff]
But how does a lifetime, blanket ban on possession of firearms--i.e., a complete denial of Second Amendment rights--for any of tens of thousands of claimed "felonies" fit with this "compelling need" model? What's the compelling need for the state to deny Second Amendment rights for life to someone convicted of fraud or money laundering?
The compelling need appears to be related to the general trend of disarming as many of the marks as possible, as soon as possible.
Close. The complling need is for politicians to appear to be 'tough on crime'. Being 'tough on crime' gets you reelected. Being 'soft on crime' means you lose and have to find a real job. Taking away the rights of convicted criminals who have served their sentences makes you look tough on crime to the sheeple. The convicts and wimpy human-rights organizations like the ACLU might complain, but fuck 'em, they're liberals or criminals who get whatever we decide that they deserve. Hell, if it'll get people to vote for you, throw 'em in a mental hospital after they've served their terms, or publish their names so citizens can drive them out of town. It has little to do with disarming the population and lots to do with the climate of fear that politicans and the media have whipped up. With the downfall of communisim and the end of the cold war, the DOJ/FBI/NSA/prison system has become the new Military Industrial Complex. Need money to get elected? Vote for new prisons and the powerful Prison Guards lobby will help you out. Need a new pork-barrel project to help out your friends back in the district? Vote for federal dollars for more cops. Need to sell papers or TV ads? Tell people how bad crime is, everyone's afraid of the criminals they see on 'Cops'. More fear. More cops. More jails. We're marching towards the police state one jack-boot at a time.
- Hanging--very quick and very painless (the neck is snapped, and consciousness vanishes)
Actually it was only relatively recently that this became the case, I believe it was either William Calcraft or one of the Pierrepont family who perfected the drop calculation method of hanging (both families were British executioners, Calcraft at Newgate prison and the Pierreponts at various places over a long period of time), before that it was quite common for the condemned to either choke to death if the drop was too short, or to be beheaded if it was too long. Newgate prison is incidentally the same place where as late as 1789 people were burnt to death for witchcraft, sophisticated England huh? ;-)...
- Electrocution--originally designed to render subject unconscious almost immediately. Whether it does this merits discussion, but the original intent was surely for a "scientific" fast death (just as the guillotine was similarly designed)
I don`t know the exact figure but I seem to remember a US execution using the electric chair which took over 40 minutes to complete? I believe a typical time from current on to unconsciousness is around 2 minutes?
I can see the point of view which accepts serving of sentence as being the end of punishment, and I do not accept a ban on firearms as being implicit in the commision of a felony, but if a court explicitly states that part of the punishment should be a X year or lifetime ban I can accept that.
Does this mean that you would "accept" a wording which took away a released convict's ability to speak freely, or to practice the religion of his choice?
No, speech or practice of religion are not of the same ilk as the right to own firearms, I am definitely on thin ice here, and I admit I am not entirely certain of my own perspective, BUT I cannot see how someone convicted of armed robbery should be allowed the right to own firearms again. A person convicted of a violent armed crime is just not in the same league as an innocent citizen, and should not have the same rights.
("Upon completion of your 6-month sentence for public blasphemy, you must renounce Baalism and accept the religion so ordered by the court.")
Why is this any different from taking away Second Amendment rights?
See the above, I refer you to the danger of a person who has already proven their disregard for the rights of others being allowed to own weapons.
But how does a lifetime, blanket ban on possession of firearms--i.e., a complete denial of Second Amendment rights--for any of tens of thousands of claimed "felonies" fit with this "compelling need" model? What's the compelling need for the state to deny Second Amendment rights for life to someone convicted of fraud or money laundering?
Tim, you are either taking me out of context or overgeneralising my statement, as I know you are not of the second persuation I will assume the first and re-iterate that I do not believe in the restriction of second ammendment rights for people convicted of felonies in general, only for those convicted of serious violent crimes. And I do not believe in a lifetime blanket ban, ie. "All convicted armed robbers shall never be allowed to posess firearms again", I believe a court should be able to use its own discretion to decide a fitting punishment, ie. "You shall be sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and a 10 year ban on ownership of firearms".
The compelling need appears to be related to the general trend of disarming as many of the marks as possible, as soon as possible. (I understand, Paul, that you are not a U.S. citizen, but this is the framework for the current discussion.)
This is an evident trend in most of the world, with the UK following the path of the US. For many years it has been the case that on the commision of any crime, even for example drink-driving, or common assult (a UK offence classification for the most trivial of assult cases, ie. hitting someone), the right to own guns is immediately removed and never returned, even when the offence is spent under the rehabilitation act. I recall my own father having trouble obtaining a firearms licence some years ago because of a drink-drive conviction some 20 years earlier... I will state once more though, and attempt not to post again on this thread as I don`t want a flame war, that I do not support or condone general loss of 2nd ammendment rights for any and all felonies in general, only for serious violent crimes and then at the discretion of a court and not as some pre-set standard penalty. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:32 PM 7/2/97 +0000, Paul Bradley wrote:
No, speech or practice of religion are not of the same ilk as the right to own firearms, I am definitely on thin ice here, and I admit I am not entirely certain of my own perspective, BUT I cannot see how someone convicted of armed robbery should be allowed the right to own firearms again. A person convicted of a violent armed crime is just not in the same league as an innocent citizen, and should not have the same rights.
Quite simple. Eliminate prison, encourage everyone to carry weapons, wait 6 months, then well behaved people will predominate and many of the maladjusted will find themselves well-adjusted or dead. Rough 6 months. Try to spend it in the South of France. This may be the de facto eventuality as nanotech develops. If the soccer moms are afraid of assault rifles, how will they react to the nastiness you will be able to gin up from you desktop fab station in a few years. DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM7r3UIVO4r4sgSPhAQHshAQAlVEXSi7VU/pKr9dnRmid7BjIqL8DKvzj jXS0DDs4qZRagFolKlu7FuC4QaLwCO9mhBoP9VWXheECOAp5ahZc6Co0AvlJHiQf Gfdgz7obRF5ZcRGu14tVNajZ8BLnXf1rX9RVwI6LO5XpLZXhi5Me6FC530bu1X7Z 02dB9BxNNyQ= =XgnA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, Jul 02, 1997 at 08:50:25PM -0400, frissell@panix.com wrote:
At 05:32 PM 7/2/97 +0000, Paul Bradley wrote:
No, speech or practice of religion are not of the same ilk as the right to own firearms, I am definitely on thin ice here, and I admit I am not entirely certain of my own perspective, BUT I cannot see how someone convicted of armed robbery should be allowed the right to own firearms again. A person convicted of a violent armed crime is just not in the same league as an innocent citizen, and should not have the same rights.
Quite simple. Eliminate prison, encourage everyone to carry weapons, wait 6 months, then well behaved people will predominate and many of the maladjusted will find themselves well-adjusted or dead.
Along with a far larger number of well-adjusted innocents. And the maladjusted who aren't dead will be in power.
Rough 6 months. Try to spend it in the South of France.
This may be the de facto eventuality as nanotech develops. If the soccer moms are afraid of assault rifles, how will they react to the nastiness you will be able to gin up from you desktop fab station in a few years.
No question about it, the only hope for the human race is wide dispersal. Everybody should join the L5 society, if it still exists, or become a terrorist Luddite, and bomb us back to the stone age. But the Earth is doomed, anyway, in 5 billion years. And we have either the grand crunch or the heat death of the universe to contend with after that. Hopeless. "The root of greed is fear." "There is something right when Kent Crispin is not a felon under an increasing number of laws." -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <19970702180331.11847@bywater.songbird.com>, on 07/02/97 at 06:03 PM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:
"There is something right when Kent Crispin is not a felon under an increasing number of laws."
Just goes to show that you can goose-step with the best of them Kent. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM7r+t49Co1n+aLhhAQG1MgP/aX1pinHLHw+H2883L2jLE4B8WUG4Xsjn zdei4cc1vnHP0ZQQtmhZugYrj1mRkp3Av97MOtMydsc4ZLgNMad71OkYfW6DEkBY nlgdmZIPFirjwqGprQRRcesLpiWAGy/3WIgwOGW/THnMixOrCbb6LZdTbd6yQpKW 14b3DbwzW7w= =Mumc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, Jul 02, 1997 at 08:21:23PM -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In <19970702180331.11847@bywater.songbird.com>, on 07/02/97 at 06:03 PM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> said:
"There is something right when Kent Crispin is not a felon under an increasing number of laws."
Just goes to show that you can goose-step with the best of them Kent.
You learn the darndest things on this list.... -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
On Tue, Jul 01, 1997 at 09:47:45AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
At 7:46 AM -0700 7/1/97, Paul Bradley wrote: [...]
I can see the point of view which accepts serving of sentence as being the end of punishment, and I do not accept a ban on firearms as being implicit in the commision of a felony, but if a court explicitly states that part of the punishment should be a X year or lifetime ban I can accept that.
Does this mean that you would "accept" a wording which took away a released convict's ability to speak freely, or to practice the religion of his choice?
("Upon completion of your 6-month sentence for public blasphemy, you must renounce Baalism and accept the religion so ordered by the court.")
Why is this any different from taking away Second Amendment rights?
At one level, it is not. Punishment intrinsically involves restriction on rights. Your right to free speech *is* restricted while you are in jail. Your right to practice your religion can be infringed -- you may not be able to have a prayer blanket, for example. When you are convicted of a felony you step into a different category as far as protection of rights are concerned. On another level, they are *different* rights. So, in practice, the rights to free speech and free religion are given greater weight.
There is sometimes a loophole for taking away some particular right, or interfering with it in a special way, a la the language of "compelling needs." This is how the courts look at the putative conflict of rights, as in things like "the state has a compelling need to protect minors from these materials." Then there's the related language of "overbroad."
But how does a lifetime, blanket ban on possession of firearms--i.e., a complete denial of Second Amendment rights--for any of tens of thousands of claimed "felonies" fit with this "compelling need" model? What's the compelling need for the state to deny Second Amendment rights for life to someone convicted of fraud or money laundering?
It's really more of an issue of practice, rather than principle. There is no disputing that once you are caught up in the criminal justice system your rights are constrained. The constitution guarantees the accused certain rights, to be sure, and the convicted rather less. But it is clear that the blanket provisions of the Bill of Rights simply don't apply to criminals. However, the issue is very complex. "The system" has a number of discretionary points -- variable sentencing regiems, time off for good behaviour, probation, parole -- all involve different levels of constraints on rights, all constitutional. In principle, once you accept that the state has the mandate to punish criminals, you accept that criminals lose rights. Period. As an anarchist you may say that the state has no such mandate. But then you have the messy problem of what to do with common criminals, and you end up with a state that you refuse to call a state. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
On Mon, Jun 30, 1997 at 06:37:56PM -0700, Lucky Green wrote:
The idea is that the criminal has received their punishment once released from prison.
OTOH, there is no necessity at all to think of it that way. Prison isn't the only punishment -- there is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that says that. (Certainly, not being able to own a gun is in no meaningful sense a "cruel or unusual" punishment.) A court that can impose a life sentence can impose a lifetime ban on certain activities -- there is nothing at all inconsistent here. Another fallacy is to think that prison is a temporary phenomenon. "Been to prison" is a permanent state -- it marks you for life. "Convicted Felon" is a permanent legal condition, a title with permanent social effects. You are probaboy thinking that after a person has "paid their debt to society" things are just like they were before. It's a nice theory, but it's false. It's not like money. Your "debt to society" is not paid off by a prison term.
Any further infringements on the person's rights are unacceptable. That includes the person's Natural Right to acquire fully-automaticweapons, should he so desire. [BTW, the nature of the crime committed is irrelevant].
"Let the punishment fit the crime". The crime is *always* relevant to the punishment, the punishment is *always* a function of the crime. It is incoherent and unjust to think otherwise. A punishment can certainly infringe your "Natural Rights" -- you can be executed, after all. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
"Convicted Felon" is a permanent legal condition, a title with permanent social effects.
Weren't all felonies capital crimes initially? A hungry little boy convicted of stealing a loaf of bread would hang. Some time later the felons were given a choice of going to the gallows or to Australia. A convicted felon freed after a jail sentence is a fairly recent invention. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
however, banning ownership of guns for any felony is definitely not at all reasonable.
It beats being banned from possessing weapons for living in the U.K.
I don`t know: most UK citizen-units are guilty of criminal stupidity, maybe this implies a ban on ownership of guns? ;-)... Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
At 2:13 PM -0700 6/27/97, Greg Broiles wrote:
At 01:07 PM 6/27/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: [...]
The National Rifle Association has become a den of statist compromisers. It should be added to any hit lists.
Is anyone aware of a pro-second amendment organization which doesn't spend some of its money/energy on screwing up other important amendments? (The fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth are popular targets.)
The Libertarian Party. It has strongly supported the Second Amendment, and has not, so far as I know, tried to screw up any other of the important amendments. My problem with it is that it is a political organization, and the newsletters and local chapters are focussed on "inside baseball" of various elections. And the California State Convention I attended some years back was about the most boring thing I've ever been to. I suspect the Cato Insitute is also Pro-Second without screwing with any of the other good amendments. As Greg knows well, of course, the ACLU is to avoided at all costs. --Tim There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
At 01:20 PM 6/27/97 -0700, Alan wrote:
I expect it will be extended further on down the line. "Hold on a for a few minutes. We seem to be having some problem with your records check." Meanwhile, the local/state/federal/illuminati are on their way to apprehend the miscreant.
Heh - it's already that way in some places if you try to buy a car with cash :-)
(Somehow most people think it's OK that convicted felons lose their rights to vote and to have guns. (Once they're released, of course.) Do they think convicted felons no longer have religious freedom? Can no longer write as they wish? Jeesh.)
I find it interesting that they find the right to vote as dangerous as the right to own a gun.
After the results of the 1990 Census were in, New Jersey was re-gerrymandering their Congressional District boundaries. Aside from the usual goals (making sure the Republicans, who were then in power, had solid districts), there were the usual concerns about racial balance, so they wanted to create a district in the east-central side of the state that was mostly minority (largely Hispanic, in this case). The first cut didn't have enough minorities, so they moved the boundary to include Rahway Prison. The legal system being what it is, the residents are largely minority ..... and most of them can't vote :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)
At 01:07 PM 6/27/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: [...]
The National Rifle Association has become a den of statist compromisers. It should be added to any hit lists.
Is anyone aware of a pro-second amendment organization which doesn't spend some of its money/energy on screwing up other important amendments? (The fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth are popular targets.) And, while I'm off topic, here's another data point re why paying cash and keeping one's home address private is always a good policy: (from <www.cnn.com> a few minutes ago)
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Michael Camfield had not even finished watching the movie he had rented, "The Tin Drum," when police knocked on his front door and demanded that he give them the Academy Award-winning foreign film. <<<<
"I got the strong impression that verbal resistance on my part was futile and they were going to get that tape one way or another and arrest me if they had to," said Camfield, development director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Oklahoma. <<<<
-- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Greg Broiles wrote:
At 01:07 PM 6/27/97 -0700, Tim May wrote: [...]
The National Rifle Association has become a den of statist compromisers. It should be added to any hit lists.
Is anyone aware of a pro-second amendment organization which doesn't spend some of its money/energy on screwing up other important amendments? (The fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth are popular targets.)
Take a look at "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership". You don't have to Jewish to join. JPFO is a no-compromise, every-household-an-assault-rifle type of organization. Proud to be a member, --Lucky
At 3:22 PM -0700 6/27/97, Lucky Green wrote:
Take a look at "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership". You don't have to Jewish to join. JPFO is a no-compromise, every-household-an-assault-rifle type of organization.
This is outrageous. Surely Jews count on government to defend them and protect them from criminals. Why would Jews want guns when the government is there to protect them? Name a single government that has ever targetted Jews. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
participants (13)
-
Alan -
Bill Stewart -
Bill Stewart -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Eric Murray -
frissell＠panix.com -
Greg Broiles -
Kent Crispin -
Lucky Green -
Paul Bradley -
Rabid Wombat -
Tim May -
William H. Geiger III