I haven't updated this page in over 8 years. Is somebody kidding me. I've been through a lot since then, but my opinion about things has not changed. This country is in a lot of trouble. This radical move to the left will destroy the traditional way of life in The United States of America. I created this site a long time ago with the focus on gun control. Forget about that. After President Obama is done, this country will be radically changed to a total welfare state. Which punishes people for working hard and being successful and rewards people for being lazy and failing. I'll have more at a later date. Hopefully, it won't take 8 years for the next update.
If New York City let law abiding citizens carry a firearm for protection more lives could be saved. Read this story from CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/25/deli.shooting.ap/index.html
Click Here to read the agreement Smith & Wesson and the Government. My Advice, a TOTAL BOYCOTT OF SMITH & WESSON WHICH SHOULD NOW BE CALLED CLINTON & WESSON!
Here again what the leftist liberal media doesn't want you to know. Why? Because it doesn't fit with there liberal socialistic agenda. This article is from NewsMax.com. If you have friends who are socialist liberals, ask them to read this article.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/12/104130
In his most recent news letter to constituents, US Representative Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA) is pushing the Clinton-Gore Gun Control agenda. According to the article on page 3 "The Time is Now for Common Sense Gun Safety Laws", Mr. Hoeffel states he would go further than recently introduced legislation.
Mr. Hoeffel: "I would go even further, however, than the current bills we are considering. I favor registration of all handguns and licensing of handgun owners. We license drivers and register cars, and I believe guns and their owners should be treated similarly."
I'll ask the question again. If all handgun owners were to be licensed and handguns registered like cars, would I then be able to carry a loaded pistol with me for protection when traveling out of my state of residence? I mean why not, I can drive my registered car in any state. I have sent a message to Mr. Hoeffel asking this same question. I always get the same response form letter. I doubt I'll get an answer this time either. I find it interesting that Mr. Hoeffel's website has a section for his news letter, however, the article "The Time is Now for Common Sense Gun Safety Laws" is NOT on the site.
The NRA started this registration debate by supporting the Federal Brady Instant Registration Check Law. After it was implemented the NRA complained about the government keeping a record of gun purchases by law abiding citizens. What did you expect? The NRA was/is that naive to think the government wouldn't keep a record! This is one of the reasons why I am a former NRA member. Now you (the NRA) want to complain about New York State's new gun control provisions. With what you call "backdoor" registration with the gun DNA bill, A10059. You (the NRA) have done NOTHING in the recent past, but compromise our Second Amendment rights away with both federal and state legislators.
Think about this. The NRA wants the Federal Government to strictly enforce all Federal Gun Control Laws. Think about the following before advocating such a policy.
______________________________________________________________________
Legally Speaking Be Careful What You Ask For When
Advocating Enforcement by Karen L. MacNutt
My client looked distinctly uncomfortable. He was, after all,
the vice president of a local bank, deacon of his church, and,
to all his neighbors, a model citizen." So," I asked, "How can I
help you?"
"It was so long ago," he began, "I don't want my children or
grandchildren to know."
"Why don't you tell me about it," I prompted. His eyes would
not meet mine.
"The ATF came to my house this morning. It was so
embarrassing. Not even my wife knew." He paused.
"What did they want?"
"They said I was a felon and I had bought a gun and if I did
not surrender all the guns in the house to them right away
they would arrest me on the spot. They took my guns. They
took my wife's guns. They even took my son's gun. They said
that if there were any guns in the house, they would arrest
me as a felon in possession of guns. They said they were
going to turn the case over to the US Attorney to see if they
were going to prosecute."
"How did you come to their attention?"
"I wanted to buy a shotgun for my son's 25th birthday. When I
filled out the 'instant check' stuff, the man in the gun store
said I would have to wait. I went back a couple of weeks later
and since nothing had come back saying I was disqualified,
they let me buy the gun. Now the ATF is saying I lied on the
form and I have a felony record."
"Do you?" I asked.
"Well," my client said, "I didn't think so. I've only been in
trouble once and it was just stupid stuff while I was in
college." He paused. "It was during one of those student
demonstrations in the late '60s. We were protesting
something. Well, this is really stupid. . .I mooned the dean
and they charged me with indecent exposure." He let out a
big sigh.
"The judge said if I didn't do it again there would be no
problem and I would not be disqualified from anything. We all
thought it was a big joke at the time. I didn't even have a
lawyer. I think I had to pay $25 or something. I've owned
guns for years. I've had a pistol permit for over 20 years and
this is the first time I've ever had a problem. It was so long
ago. Can they still hold it against me?"
The short answer was, "yes." They can hold an old conviction
against you.
Gun rights activists often propose toughening the criminal
laws as an alternative to more gun laws. They should be
careful of what they ask for. Some of the repressive laws they
are suggesting will be used against them in ways they never
dreamed of.
For example, most people think felons should be barred from
possessing guns forever. Most people think that "felons" are
desperate or violent people. That is not always the case.
Felonies are not always violent. Some laws are drafted so
broadly that widely different behavior is made illegal.
Lewd behavior is a felony in some states. Lewd behavior can
run all the way from relieving yourself in an inappropriate
place, to social protest, to sun bathing, to the acts of a really
perverted mind. Pornography can be totally disgusting and is
a felony in many places.
On the other hand what is pornographic changes. The term
has been applied to classical art such as all those naked
Greek statues. It has also been applied to parents who took
naked pictures of their children as babies in typical baby
behavior.
In many states gambling is a felony. Getting a woman with
child (even if you marry her later) can be a felony. Procuring
an abortion used to be a felony. Even though the act is no
longer criminal, if you did it when it was illegal and were
convicted, you would be a felon.
Cheating on your income tax or filling out a host of
government forms incorrectly can be a felony. Then there are
those heinous crimes such as donating too much money to a
political campaign, allowing an endangered species to
commit suicide against your windshield, filling in that swampy
(wetlands) part of your backyard and certain types of illegal
dumping. Many of these laws do not require intent. The fact
you were unaware you were violating the law is not a
defense.
Some people violate the law by accident or stupidity, other
people are truly evil and vile. Putting people in jail without
regard to the circumstances of their offense is not just. Our
laws must be able to distinguish among these groups. As our
firearms laws become more complex, more people find
themselves in violation of those laws unintentionally. We
must keep law enforcement local and we must allow the
courts some flexibility.
With the exception of some computer crimes, just about any
anti-social activity that should be criminal, is already criminal.
Stacking charges or creating overlapping federal and state
jurisdiction allows for multiple prosecutions for the same
crime. We should not promote a system that allows the state
to zero in on someone and then keep dragging that person
before different courts until it gets a conviction. Such
convictions are not based on the guilt or innocence of the
person charged. They are based upon the accused's
financial and emotional weakness.
When the NRA proposed the "instant check" as an alternative
to a waiting period, sportsmen believed they were making a
good faith compromise. The "instant check," however,
created the framework, not just for national gun registration,
but for a national tracking system of all citizens. Made
possible by computers, the federal government is compiling
massive amounts of information about all of us. Not all of that
information is correct.
Each state has different laws and standards. There is no
uniform labeling of crimes or characterization of offenses as
misdemeanors or felonies. In many states, the older criminal
records are not in good order.
When I started practice, all records were kept by hand locally.
Different courts kept their records in slightly different ways.
There were differences in the way judges handled cases.
Many states have methods which allow the judge to impose
court supervision without giving the accused a criminal
record. Terms such as "pre-trial diversion," "pre-trial
probation," "continuance without a finding," "placing on file,"
"conditional dismissal," and "suspended finding," describe
dispositions which do not result in giving the accused a
criminal record. Because judges believed nothing other than
a fine would result from such dispositions, they were quick to
impose them without much thought to the guilt or innocence
of the accused.
In some areas, records of closed cases have been destroyed
leaving only cryptic entries describing the charges but not the
disposition of the case. When the NICS check is conducted, it
frequently turns up these partial records. To make matters
worse, the "instant check" also looks at the NCIC records of
arrests. If no follow up entry was made in that data base
indicating what happened after the arrest, the government
tends to treat the reported arrest as if it were a conviction.
The citizen is then forced to prove he was not convicted.
There is no time limit on convictions, so that a check could
turn up a record 60 years old. Tracking down older public
records can be very difficult.
If that were not bad enough, many states have similar
sounding crimes, some of which are felonies and some are
not. It can get a little confusing. For example, if someone
were charged with larceny, we would have to know whether it
was larceny "over" or "under" to determine if it was a felony.
If the item stolen exceeded a certain value, it is larceny "over"
and a felony. The problem is that the value of the item taken
to create the felony of larceny "over" is not constant from
state to state. The theft of a hubcap in one state could be a
felony, while the exact same act in another state is not. Even
within a state, the laws change. Penalties have crept up. If
you were convicted of drunk driving in Massachusetts in
1993, you are not disqualified from having a gun. If you were
convicted of the same crime in 1994 you are disqualified.
A criminal conviction remains forever unless you are
pardoned, have the record expunged or you live in a state
that automatically expunges a record on the passage of time.
Most states do not automatically expunge records. Some
states seal records after a period of time. The sealing of a
record does not remove the conviction, it simply hides it from
the general public. If you have a sealed record, you should
consult with your attorney before answering any
governmental questionnaire that asks about convictions.
In my client's case, if he had a conviction, even though it was
over 35 years ago, it was still a conviction. The attitude some
people take of, "If you don't see it, it can't hurt you," is
dangerous. With improvements in data entry and computers,
you cannot assume that old records will not be found.
This brings us back to my client. Our first problem was to
determine what had happened in the original court
proceeding. That was difficult, because most of the original
records had been destroyed. There were two possible crimes
he could have been charged with. One was a misdemeanor,
the other was a felony. Both had similar sounding names
such as "open and gross lewdness" or "lewd behavior." It
was impossible to tell from the records which offense he had
been convicted of. It was also impossible to tell from the
record whether he had been convicted or his case had been
continued and dismissed. The normal disposition of this type
of case would have been a continuation and dismissal. On
the other hand the mooned college official may have
demanded a higher price for the affront to his dignity.
The "instant check" people assumed the worst, even though
the records were ambiguous. In the end, we petitioned the
court to reopen a 35-year-old case to correct and complete a
record that had been destroyed.
My client was one of a growing number of people who have
become entangled in a complex web of laws based on old
and incomplete information. Prior to computers, this
information was happily inaccessible. That is no longer the
case. Not only have faulty records caused trouble for some
people, but court interpretations of the Firearms Owners
Protection Act have opened the door to serious problems.
At one time, the federal government refused to recognize
state pardons of people with felony convictions and further
refused to recognize the state classification of a crime as a
misdemeanor if the potential penalty was greater than two
years. This led to problems with people who committed state
crimes, which were misdemeanors under state law but are
treated as felonies under federal law.
This also caused problems for people who received pardons
or who had their right to own firearms restored under state
law. Such people acquired guns in good faith, believing they
were in compliance with the law only to be prosecuted by the
federal government as felons in possession of firearms. To
help these people the Firearms Owners Protection Act
amended federal law to provide that, "Any conviction which
has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has
been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be
considered a conviction under this chapter, unless such
pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly
provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or
receive firearms."
This provision has been interpreted by a number of federal
district and circuit courts in different ways. One line of thought
was that a restoration of rights had to be full. If any limitation
was placed on firearms ownership, this section did not apply.
The other line of thought was that the rights were restored or
limited under federal law to the same extent they were
restored or limited under state law.
For example, in Massachusetts, it used to be that five years
after a conviction for a felony a person's right to own rifles,
shotguns, and handguns was restored but their right to carry
handguns outside their home was not. There were also a
number of pardons given out to restore limited firearms rights
such as the right to have a firearm for hunting, or the right to
have just rifles and shotguns.
In 1998, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Caron v.
United States, 118 S.Ct. 2007, that if there were any
limitations on firearms ownership remaining after a
restoration of rights, that the federal law prohibited such
person from possessing any firearms. That is, even if the
state specifically said the person could have certain firearms,
the federal law would not recognize that.
This has resulted in prosecution or threats of prosecution of
scores of firearm owners who thought they were in
compliance with the law. Even people who resided in those
areas where the courts had previously recognized a partial
restoration of firearms rights were held to be subject to
prosecution. That is, people who acquired firearms in good
faith and in reliance on the ruling of their federal circuit court
are now held to be in violation of the law.
The ruling of the Supreme Court is contrary to the plain
meaning and expectations created by the statute. It recreates
the very ambiguity in the law that the 1986 Firearms Owners
Protection Act was intended to correct. It once again raises
the prospects of people being prosecuted under federal law
for being a felon in possession of firearms as a result of a
violation of state law, even though the state has forgiven the
offense and removed the disability.
As the "instant check" involves more and more Americans,
some people have been shocked to find that they have
criminal records due to some stupid transgression they fairly
believed to have been dismissed. Others who believed
themselves to have been pardoned and specifically forgiven
for an offense are suddenly finding that they are subject to
prosecution as a felon in possession of firearms.
When the government proclaims that thousands of felons
have been prevented from buying firearms, I wonder how
many of them are people who legitimately thought their rights
had been restored or who are victims of poor record
keeping?
Before we demand that all those who failed the background
check be prosecuted, we should first ask, "How accurate is
the data base the refusal was based upon?" We should then
ask, "What are the circumstances?"
In many instances, I believe fair-minded people would come
to the conclusion that the people involved should not be
prosecuted.
______________________________________________________________________
I have one very important question for the NRA. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you NOT understand?
I know the NRA will NOT respond to this message by me. Hell they didn't respond to my messages when I was a member. The only time I heard from the NRA was when they wanted a contribution.
The exact text of this message will be posted on my website:
http://www.erols.com.rjm0222/firearm.htm
Sincerely,
Robert J. Massella
Former NRA Member, Current GOA Member
The gun grabbers say that The Second Amendment of The United States Constitution doesn't guarantee a private citizen the right to purchase and/or own a firearm. Not only the gun grabbers, but also The United States Government feels the same way. My question is this. If that is the case, then how can I, as a private citizen, go to the gun store right now, select the firearm I want, fill out the paperwork, go through the instant registration check, pass, pay for the firearm I selected and leave the store with it? How isn't it an individual right?
Update on a very important case involving The Second Amendment of The United States Constitution. U.S. Attorneys argue that The Second Amendment of The United States Constitution does NOT even guarantee members of The National Guard the right to own firearms. But the judges don't buy it. Follow this link to the Second Amendment Foundation for more information.
I am a resident of Pennsylvania. I live in the 13th Congressional District. My Congressional Representative is Gun Grabber Democrat Joseph Hoeffel. Mr. Hoeffel has consistently voted to take our rights away. Click here to see how Mr. Hoeffel has voted to take away more of our liberties. I have written letters to Mr. Hoeffel since he took office in 1999. I always receive the same response. Telling me how he supports more gun control and a bigger more intrusive federal government. A typical Liberal Democrat. In a written response to me from Mr. Hoeffel dated June 30, 1999. Mr. Hoeffel explains how he supports the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment. The letters goes on to explain how Mr. Hoeffel has voted in favor of more federal gun control legislation and how Mr. Hoeffel supports a three day waiting period on all gun purchases. Mr. Hoeffel is a HYPOCRITE! Mr. Hoeffel, what part of "Shall Not be Infringed" do you NOT understand? Do Montgomery County, Pennsylvania gun owners want Mr. Hoeffel to represent them for another term?
The shooting in Washington, DC this week has prompted President Clinton and DC Officials to implement a gun buy back program to remove 7,000 guns from the streets of our Nation's Capitol. See story online via the Clinton News Network.
7,000 Guns! Washington, DC has the most restrictive common sense gun control laws in the nation. No one is permitted to posses a firearm in the Capitol (except police), unless it was registered in 1976 and reregistered in 1977. After 1977 no more firearms can be registered. To store the firearm(s) in your home, it must be unloaded and broken down, if it can be broken down. If it cannot be broken down it must be equipped with a trigger lock. With such restrictive, common sense gun control laws, I can't understand how anyone could be a shooting victim in Washington, DC. Can you? They tell us how more common sense gun control laws save lives. We need more common sense gun control laws. How did these common sense gun control laws in Washington, DC save lives this week?
I watched the network news coverage of the shooting. I didn't hear one reporter say, how could this happen? Washington, DC has the most restrictive common sense gun control laws in the nation. Why? Because the networks are anti-gun and pro-big government! Where was Handgun Control Inc.? Sarah Brady where are you now? This is what you want! A total firearm ban! Firearms are virtually banned in DC! Here is a common sense question for Sarah Brady. How did the DC common sense gun control laws save lives this week? I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Nothing to say unless it furthers your agenda!
The only sound bites you hear from the gun grabbers on the news are trigger locks, and gun show background checks, these sound bites only scratch the surface. Why? Because these things sound good to the American people, even some gun owners. They never get into specifics about what these gun control bills actually mandate. Do yourself a favor, find out what these bills actually say. When you do, you'll see volumes of gun control measures you won't hear on the news. Follow this link, then on search word or phrase type in "gun show" and click search. Read the first ten bills that come up and see for yourself.
The findings of a federal government study entitled, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse" which was conducted from 1993 to 1995 by the U. S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention are a slap in the face of the conventional wisdom about children and guns.
According to the study:
Am I saying run out to the store today and buy your child a gun? Of course not. What I am saying is, if you own firearms and have children educate them on the safe use and handling of firearms. An even better option is, enroll in a course given by an NRA Certified Instructor. Even if you have taken a similar course in the past. Take it again, a refresher course can't hurt.
Who do you think is better suited to curb youth violence? Responsible parents or politicians? For some reason a majority of people in this country have the opinion that the federal government is here to solve their problems. If they ever educated themselves on the U. S. Constitution that opinion might change. But I doubt it.
The reason the gun grabbers use these tragedies to further their agenda is the media. Most of the major television, radio and newspapers are anti-gun. Their relentless coverage of these events convinces people that guns are the problem and more government mandated common sense gun control will solve the problem. I don't know this for a fact, but I'd be willing to bet the above mentioned government study, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse" was NOT broadcast by the major media outlets. The only time you hear about guns in the news is when they are being used criminally.
Thank You for Visiting my Site