Who gains by such ban policies, and who loses? Are these policies effective in any way? Surely they garner publicity in the newspapers, magazines and TV reports. Anti-gun customers are happy, but they don't take action against the businesses because of it. The newspapers gain a little in stature when a business supports their views. Do these business policies prevent any firearms-related crime? Or do they affect only law-abiding customers?

Let's examine two scenarios, those of a citizen who carries a concealed weapon with a permit, and a criminal who carries a gun (certainly without a permit). A bank posts a sign on the doors of every branch saying "No Firearms Allowed". A customer approaches the door. She is a normally law-abiding citizen who carries a concealed weapon with a permit for good reasons; she has been mugged in the past. She sees the sign on the door. Does she enter? No, but she realizes she can't do business with the bank if she can't enter the premises. This time, she removes the firearm to her car, enters the bank and does business, and as soon as possible moves her savings, checking, and investment accounts to another bank. Later that day, two men drive up near the bank door, and double park with the engine running. One emerges with a concealed firearm and a hooded sweatshirt and sunglasses and approaches the door. He sees the No Firearms Allowed sign, and says to himself, Gee, I can't carry my gun in there. I guess we'll have to go down the street and rob that other bank. Do they leave and go rob the other bank? The robber who reads the sign laughs to himself, robs the bank anyway, scares 15 customers in the bank, then brags to his friends afterwards about the stupid sign the bank put in the door. Do robbers target businesses with these signs in the door over ones which have no stated policy against firearms owners? You betcha. It's safer to target a business for robbery which has a "No concealed carry" sign in the door than one which doesn't.

The irony is that in the attempt to make themselves look good to the liberal media, corporations create self-defeating policies: Many of the desirable customers they want to keep take their business elsewhere because of the policy - and they tell other customers about it who also leave. And the people you'd rather not have on the premises of your business aren't deterred by the policy at all, they're actually encouraged to visit. Another irony is that when the media report the new policy, more firearms owners and criminals read the news. Customers leave, criminals arrive to victimize the business and its customers.

Who is actually deterred by the sign? And how much are they deterred? Certainly only customers are deterred. The firearm-owning or -carrying customer takes his business elsewhere, and reports his experiences to other firearms owners via his club or state shooting association email listserver. The listserver forwards a copy of the message to its members and to 49 other state shooting associations. Members of these associations read the message and forward them to shooting clubs, hunting clubs, social clubs and friends, who forward them in turn.

Who responds negatively to businesses discriminating against firearms owners and businesses? All gun owners do. Liberal newspapers portray NRA members as plaid-shirted, grass-stem-sucking, kill-everything country hicks. The newspapers are naive and they lie. The establishment media's contempt for gun owners is so intense that the veracity of their stories are of little import. Actually, the ranks of the NRA include the complete spectrum of U.S. society in approximately the same ratios, but are weighted more heavily towards service veterans, street-level police men and women, and people who traditionally hunted and carried firearms in daily life--normal, law-abiding people. They include government bureaucrats and managers, teachers, lawyers, bankers, and (frequently secretly, as here in Tallahassee) newspaper staff and editors. They also include investors. NRA members are heavily registered to vote, sensitive to encroachment on their rights, and they vote and they boycott in great numbers. They don't necessarily take their marching orders from the NRA, but they take heed when NRA announces political candidate rankings and they forward the news. NRA members know that many politicians that want to ban guns also own them and carry them privately for self-protection.

If your business puts up the ban sign, they won't be dealing with many NRA members --interestingly, most NRA sympathizers are not NRA members. These include the most of the large mass of Americans who hunt and fish. Firearms owners are extremely well-connected, with web pages, clubs, businesses organizations, associations and grassroots groups all tied together by an array of email listservers and newsletters which spread the word. It's a serious misjudgment, that the media make, in blaming things on the NRA, when it's actually firearms owners and other local organizations who make the moves. Firearms owners also belong to organizations like Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners' Action League, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the Lawyers' Second Amendment Society, Women Against Gun Control, the Constitution Society, the Fully Informed Jury Association, many state shooting associations and clubs. The NRA provides training, sanctioning for competitive shooting events, political reports, and simply connects them all the groups and hunters together with news.

What motivates firearms owners? They are cognizant of a constitutional right. They grew up hunting and don't want to lose their quality of life. They are aware the police won't be there when they are needed, but will show up to take the reports later. They know the police avoid the responsibility for protecting individuals and that the Supreme Court has allowed this. They know they increasingly have to rely on themselves for self-protection, so many carry weapons, with or without a permit. They know that the cities with the highest rates of gun control have the highest rates of serious gun crime because criminals and gangsters don't obey the laws--and that this is now being reflected in emerging crime trends in Australia and England, where firearms were recently confiscated from citizens who were law-abiding enough to turn theirs in. They know that where carry of firearms is allowed crime rates slump, and that firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens frequently save lives and deter crime, though these facts are never reported by the media.

Many firearms owners have read the small 1998 book, More Guns Less Crime, by Professor John Lott. This book examined the relationship between government (not NRA's) statistics on serious crime rates, and concealed carry laws in each state, and demonstrated that concealed carry permitting decreases crime rates. What happened when "shall-issue carry legislation" passed in a few states, allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons? Did crime soar, as the nut gun-banners had predicted? No. Nowhere. In Florida, the first state with a good-sized criminal class to pass a "shall-issue" carry law, the murder and serious crime rates roared downhill instead. Trends in all other states with "shall-issue" carry permitting have consistently been the same. Those who work for the news media fail to understand or deliberately ignore an important fact: In America, violent crime rates decrease when gun ownership rates increase.

Are there business opportunities in accommodating firearms owners? There are many. Firearms owners experience discrimination by uninformed businesses every day. Some is inadvertent, some is deliberate. Such discrimination is always reported immediately and attacked by firearms owners, and opportunities are created for competing businesses by firearms owners looking for substitutes. Any business facing tight competition from many others in a well-defined market can expand its market share by taking advantage of the niche created by firearms owners looking for services. One such corporation is Wal-Mart, which provides many a citizen an introduction to sport shooting, hunting and competitive shooting; the chain sells sporting firearms and supplies, and firearms owners and their families and friends are particularly loyal to the corporation.

A good example of a business niche needing filling is in the parcel delivery business. One major parcel service tacked on unnecessary extra charges for shipping gunpowder (used by competitive shooters and hunters for legal purposes) and firearms. Other shipping companies have taken advantage and followed suit. Then the major company began requiring shipped firearms to have special labels on them. This had the effect of identifying them to criminals among their employees, who removed the parcels and took them home. In the face of mounting losses of parcels containing firearms, and higher insurance costs, the company instead charged higher shipping fees to customers and required the parcels be shipped by the most costly means. Instead of addressing the real problem, the companies attacked their own customers. Faced with follow-on by other shipping companies, firearms owners around the US are looking for a single parcel shipper willing to support firearms owners and businesses. All a business has to do is announce the fact and the customers will come.

Examples of businesses with clear biases against firearms owners include many news magazines, newspapers, shippers, banks, and one major computer seller. Firearms owners are looking for the chance to embrace new companies providing these services. Do you need new customers? All your company has to do is announce that you want them. Send the message, We Believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, to a shooting association listserver, like FSSA-Talk at tfn.net (insert the @ character and remove the spaces).

The author specifically requests that LEOs convey this important information to their local businesses.

This article is Copyright 2000 in the Public Domain by T. Dave Gowan, No Rights Reserved.

FP: Brian Jenkins, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Jenkins: Thank you.

FP: What do you make of Osama’s latest videos?

Jenkins: Communications comprise a key component of al Qaeda’s campaign. We see it as a military contest. Bin Laden sees it as building an army of believers. All wartime communications are aimed at the home front. Even as bin Laden appears to be addressing us, his followers are his primary audience.

The latest bin Laden tape informs them that, despite being the target of a worldwide, high-tech manhunt, he is alive, well, his robes are clean and pressed, he has access to a barber, he is serene, up on world events, he reads books, he is engaged and in charge—hardly the portrait of a fugitive. His acolytes see his survival as evidence of divine protection.

The words themselves hit the recurring themes. Bin Laden’s basic message is one of incitement. Bin Laden tells his followers not to wait for the center to do something for them, but to take action on their own—only continued terrorist operations ensure the continued relevancy of al Qaeda, and continued relevancy is bin Laden’s chief concern. His invitation to Americans to embrace Islam in order to end their troubles is the traditional Muslim offer to infidels—if we refuse, violence is justified. But it is also sincere. Fanatics cannot comprehend why anyone would not join them in the joy of their certainties.

The mesage contains no specific threats—these messages never do, but if we needed reminding, the tape tells us the violence will continue. In the eyes of our terrorist foes, this is a battle between God and evil, and it will continue until evil is vanquished or Judgment Day, which ever comes first.

FP: The Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said recently that U.S. authorities are worried about “sleeper cells” of would-be terrorists inside the United States. What kind of threat do “sleeper cells” pose to us?

Jenkins: I am not sure how the DNI is using the term, “sleeper cells.” Historically, sleeper cells were agents of a foreign government or organization infiltrated into the target country or recruited inside the country. The cells would remain dormant—they “sleep”—until awakened by their masters to carry out acts of espionage or sabotage. We have very little evidence of classic sleeper cells waiting to be awakened by al Qaeda, although some fear that al Qaeda may be gradually deploying a secret terrorist army that will rise up in some future terrorist surge.

The 9/11 hijackers were not sleepers. They were active al Qaeda operatives who came to the United States to prepare for the terrorist attack. They weren’t sleeping, we were.

Recently, the term “sleeper cell” has been expanded to include local terrorist operatives who remain hidden until they are commanded or decide on their own to act. That changes the meaning somewhat.

FP: How would you portray the jihadist threats inside the United States?

Jenkins: Before 9/11, when al Qaeda had a more centralized command structure, it recruited, dispatched, and supported operatives in the field. They comprised the jihadist network that reconnoitered possible targets, helped plan operations, and supported those who would carry out the actual attacks.

Pounded after 9/11, al Qaeda’s leaders had to alter their strategy. Continued terrorist operations remain essential, but the operational environment is more hostile now. The communications, international travel and transfers of funds that we now know accompanied the run-up to 9/11 are more likely to be picked up by intelligence. Instead of dispatching terrorist teams to carry out attacks, today’s al Qaeda’s leaders exhort others to adopt their ideology and wage violent jihad without waiting for specific instructions from the center. These are homegrown terrorists who self-radicalize and carry out terrorist attacks on their own initiative.

The center may be able to assist them by providing instruction over the Internet, moving jihadist volunteers via underground networks to training camps, mainly in Pakistan, providing some funds, and some say, a “guiding hand,” but for the most part, the local cells are on their own, dependent on their own resources plus what they might get out of lateral connections. I should hasten to add that connectivity in the jihadist universe is always murky, and analysts debate the role of the center. Some see it as reduced to mere exhortation. Others see direct connections behind most attacks.

FP: How successful has al Qaeda been at recruiting terrorists here in the United States?

Jenkins: Radicalization and recruitment are taking place here. Clusters of wannabe or would be terrorists have been broken up. Others remain under surveillance. But there is no evidence of a large cohort of terrorist operatives. What we have instead are bunches of angry guys who have been radicalized by the rhetoric, who fantasize about terrorist operations, and who may be conducting reconnaissance of targets, and in some cases, seeking the capabilities to carry out attacks. These homegrown conspiracies that operate beneath our intelligence radar are currently the biggest danger we face—not centrally-dispatched terrorist teams, although al Qaeda’s leaders remain determined to carry out another major attack equal to or exceeding 9/11.

FP: How dangerous are they if they lack capability?

Jenkins: No doubt, some are just hotheads venting their anger by bragging about what they will do as terrorists. Some are incompetent. An example of this would be the well-educated but hopelessly inept physicians who recently carried out the failed terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow. But if they remain determined, they will eventually acquire the capability to do something lethal. Determination is the constant. Capability is the variable. Although he was not a jihadist, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh demonstrated that, with some know-how, almost any damn fool can build a big bomb and kill a lot of people.

FP: Critics have said that FBI and police, using informants, have instigated terrorist plots, which they can then bust in order to prove there is a terrorist threat and at the same time demonstrate that they are doing their job. What do you think?

Jenkins: The authorities are in a difficult position. They are under pressure to prevent terrorist attacks before they occur as opposed to a traditional criminal investigations approach where, after a crime is committed, investigators attempt to identify and apprehend the perpetrator. That’s unsatisfactory when the perpetrators are bent upon mass murder and may be willing to die in the process.

If the authorities move in too soon, they reduce the chances of a successful prosecution, although sometimes breaking up a terrorist plot is more important than successful prosecution. If they wait too long, they risk missing an operation. British authorities reportedly were previously aware of at least two of the four terrorist bombers who killed 52 people and themselves in 2005. With limited resources, the authorities couldn’t track everyone and the two were considered marginal figures. The next time we saw them was on the cameras entering the subways to carry out their attack. In the meantime, at least one of them learned how to build bombs.

FP: You assisted in the preparation of the recent report by the New York Police Department on homegrown terrorism. What is the importance of this report?

Jenkins: I was a sidewalk engineer and technical reviewer. The report describes the trajectories of radicalization that produced operational terrorist cells in Hamburg—the team responsible for the 9/11 hijackings, Madrid, Amsterdam, London, Sydney and Toronto. It constructs an analytical framework that tracks jihadist recruits from pre-radicalization to self-identification to indoctrination to jihadization—a cycle that ends with capture or death. It then compares this model with the trajectories of radicalization observed in conspiracies within the United States. This is the most comprehensive review across national boundaries. It will become a model for comparison with future cases.

FP: Were you surprised by the controversy the report provoked?

Jenkins: Not at all. It touches on sensitive subjects and it was anticipated that it would provoke debate. The decision was to have that debate. That is the way our noisy democracy works. Although the report said almost nothing about intelligence operations, critics hollered “Police State.” “Big Brother!” “Stereotyping!”

FP: Some organizations have criticized the report as anti-Muslim or anti-Arab. How do you respond?

Jenkins: Again that was to be expected, although it was disappointing to hear one prominent Arab-American critic say on a radio broadcast the day after the NYPD report came out that he had read it “last night” when the same individual already denounced it the day before. There are approximately 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, perhaps 1.6 million in this country. The report talks about perhaps a hundred or so men, all engaged in carrying out terrorist attacks, planning terrorist attacks, or supporting terrorist operations. The decision to include them in the report was made on the basis of their actions, not their race, ethnicity, or faith. It is hardly an assault on Islam.

FP: Still, most of them were Arabs or South Asians.

Jenkins: The report was specifically about jihadization after 9/11. It was not about Basque separatists or animal rights extremists. It wasn’t about global warming. Look, racial or ethnic profiling to determine security measures is not only wrong, it is stupid in a diverse population like ours. At the same time, it would be foolish to ignore clearly identifiable patterns. In the 1960s, the FBI broke the violent arm of the Ku Klux Klan, which was responsible for bombing black churches and murdering civil rights workers. Not surprisingly, intelligence work focused mainly on white Southern males. If there were any African-American or Jewish members of the Klan, they were seriously misguided. Is it politically incorrect to observe that Puerto Rican separatists who carried out bombings in New York and Chicago in the 1970s were mostly Puerto Ricans? And is it anti-Semitic to note that members of the Jewish Defense League who years ago carried out a number of acts of terrorism in New York were—hold on to your hat—Jews?

FP: How did the media handle the NYPD report?

Jenkins: Many of those who reported on it were more accustomed to press conferences where police announce they have just saved the city by arresting eight terrorists. They were baffled when instead they were handed something that looked like a RAND report. Where were the handcuffs? Why was the NYPD doing this? The electronic medium reacted for the most predictably and reflexively, hyping the terrorist threat rather than addressing the more complicated issues of radicalization and what we can do about it.

FP: What can we do about homegrown jihadization?

Jenkins: How we might dissuade young men from a destructive and self-destructive course is still something we need to figure out. Clearly, we must operate within the law and in a manner consistent with our values. Clearly, it is more than a police matter—it is a challenge to the entire community. And clearly, we must not do anything that isolates, alienates, stigmatizes or antagonizes any community. The fact that we apparently do not have in this country deep reservoirs of support for al Qaeda’s ideology of violence is good news. It gives us some time to carefully consider how we approach the problem. In his latest videotape, Osama bin Laden calls for “caravans of martyrs.” We want to make sure he doesn’t find them here.

FP: Are you optimistic or pessimistic in our struggle with radical Islam?

Jenkins: I have no doubt that we shall prevail in this contest.

FP: Brian Jenkins, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Petition

As citizens of, and those employed in, the state of Maryland we would like to
formally request that Maryland alter it's gun laws such that any upstanding
citizen will be issued a concealed firearm permit unless the governing body
responsible for licensure can find a good and substantial reason that an
individual should not be issued a license.

The current law which states a person must have a good and substantial reason
to need a license is discriminatory against average citizens, given that it
provides means for those who own their own businesses or deal regularly in
large amounts of cash to obtain a license but does not allow the average
working citizen to do so.

In addition to being discriminatory, laws such as those currently in place in
Maryland have never proven to have a positive impact on violent crime and
have in fact been shown in some cases to negatively impact it. As supporting
evidence, we present this data compiled from the FBI's publicly available crime
statistics pages:

Click here to participate in the petition for Maryland Residents.

Several states are considering adopting "Vermont-style" concealed carry legislation. Most of the Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) laws in the country require citizens to first get permits. But in a couple of states, like Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission . . . without paying a fee . . . or without going through any kind of government- imposed waiting period. There are many reasons for a state to adopt a genuine right to carry law:

1. Carrying a firearm is a "right" not a "privilege"

The Second Amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means that law-abiding citizens should not need to beg the government for permission to carry a firearm. That would turn the "right" to bear arms into a mere "privilege." Likewise, one should not have to be photographed, fingerprinted, or registered before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights. Criminals certainly do not jump through these "hoops." The Second Amendment is no different than any of the other protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights. That is, honest citizens should not need a government issued permission slip; rather, they should be able to carry as a matter of right.

2. The issuing of permits can be abused by officials

a. Refuse to issue

* New York City: Officials in New York City routinely deny gun permits for ordinary citizens and store owners because -- as the courts have ruled -- they have no greater need for protection than anyone else in the city. In fact, the authorities have even refused to issue permits when the courts have ordered them to do so. (1)

* Gary, Indiana: Then-Mayor Richard Hatcher let it be known in 1979 that he would not be approving any citizens' concealed carry applications. He then said if they wanted to challenge his authority, they were welcome to take him to court. It took citizens over 10 years (and thousands of dollars in legal fees) to get any relief. (2)

* San Jose, CA: Joseph McNamara, a former police chief and anti-gun spokesman, bragged in his 1984 book, Safe & Sane, that "in San Jose, I have made it considerably tougher for residents to get handgun permits." (3)

b. Require fingerprints -- Virginia applicants for concealed carry permits were forced to submit to FBI fingerprint background checks without any authorization requiring such checks. (4)

c. Revoke for politically incorrect speech -- In Oregon, officials have been known to revoke concealed carry licenses because of one's political views. In one case, a permit holder had his license revoked because he was the editor of a pro-life newspaper. (5)

d. Print licensee holders' names in newspapers -- In several states, newspapers have frequently printed the names of concealed carry permit holders, which are almost always public information. (6)

3. Officials can "raise the hurdles" in order to get a permit

* The power to license a right is the power to destroy a right

a. Arbitrary Delays -- While New Jersey law requires applications to be responded to within thirty days, delays of ninety days are routine; sometimes, applications are delayed for several years for no readily apparent reason. (7)

b. Arbitrary Denials -- See the examples above from New York City, Indiana and California.

c. Arbitrary Fee Increases -- In 1994, the Clinton administration pushed for a license fee increase of almost 1,000 percent on gun dealers. According to U.S. News & World Report, the administration was seeking the license fee increase "in hopes of driving many of America's 258,000 licensed gun dealers out of business." (8) This example clearly shows how easily government officials can abuse the issuing of carry permits. Instead of using lower fees to merely pay for the processing of permits, officials can raise the fees to keep people from exercising their rights.

4. Vermont has a genuine right to carry law (i.e., requires no permits) and yet boasts one of the lowest crime rates in the nation

A. Vermont enjoys the 49th lowest crime rate in the nation, according to the FBI:

Violent Crime (1997) rate per 100,000 people
Rank	State	Rate
1st	Florida	1023.6
2nd	South Carolina	990.3
	U.S. average	610.8
49th	Vermont	119.7
50th	North Dakota	87.2

B. The FBI statistics also show that Vermont boasts the 47th lowest murder rate among the 50 states:

Murder (1997) rate per 100,000 people
Rank	State	Rate
1st	Louisiana	15.7
2nd	Mississippi	13.1
	U.S. average	6.8
47th	Vermont	1.5
48th	New Hampshire	1.4
49th	South Dakota	1.4
50th	North Dakota	.9

C. Anti-gunners like Sarah Brady want people to think that "access to firearms" is one of the greatest social ills facing this nation. If this is so, then why are guns not a problem in Vermont where anyone can strap a .45 under their jacket and go about their business? Why hasn't Vermont turned into the popular notion of the Wild West? Few states ever come close to earning the title of the "state with the lowest crime rate." Vermont has.(9)

D. Not surprisingly, concealed carry laws have worked nationwide to drop crime rates.

1. A comprehensive national study in 1996 determined that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. (10)

2. The results of the study showed:

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly. (11)

5. Waiting periods of any kind (such as those resulting from the CCW licensing process) can threaten honest people's safety. (12)

Note: Criminals usually don't bother to go through the waiting period since they don't apply for permits.

a. New York. In 1983, Igor Hutorsky was murdered by two burglars who broke into his Brooklyn furniture store. The tragedy is that some time before the murder his business partner had applied for permission to keep a handgun at the store. Even four months after the murder, the former partner had still not heard from the police about the status of his gun permit. (13)

b. Colorado. Talk show host (Alan Berg) was gunned down in 1984 after being denied a concealed carry permit. (14)

c. Wisconsin. In 1991, Bonnie Elmasri inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately, Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware. (15)

d. Los Angeles. USA Today reported that many of the people rushing to gun stores during the 1992 riots were "lifelong gun-control advocates, running to buy an item they thought they'd never need." Ironically, they were outraged to discover they had to wait 15 days to buy a gun for self-defense. (16)

e. Virginia. In 1993, Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state) and used it two days later to kill an attacker who was armed with a bayonet. (17) Had a waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking her.

6. CCW licenses register gun owners -- and licensing can lead to confiscation of firearms

a. Step One: Registration -- In the mid-1960s officials in New York City began registering long guns. They promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns. (18)

b. Step Two: Confiscation -- In 1992, a New York city paper reported that, "Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms. . . . Spot checks are planned [for other homes]." (19)

c. Foreign Countries -- Gun registration has led to confiscation in several countries, including Greece, Ireland, Jamaica and Bermuda. (20) And in an exhaustive study on this subject, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has researched and translated several gun control laws from foreign countries. Their publication, Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide, documents how gun control (and confiscation) has preceded the slaughter and genocide of millions of people in Turkey, the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia and others. (21)

7 . Constitutionally, officials cannot license or register a fundamental right

The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines and newspapers -- even if such material is "communist political propaganda." (22)

8. Citizens show amazing accuracy and self-restraint with firearms

Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). (23) And readers of Newsweek learned in 1993 that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." (24)

Two Genuine Right-to-Carry Laws: Vermont and Alaska

Vermont

V.S.A. §4003 Carrying dangerous weapons

A person who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent or avowed purpose of injuring a fellow man, or who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon within any state institution or upon the grounds or lands owned or leased for the use of such institution, without the approval of the warden or superintendent of the institution, shall be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than $200.00, or both.

Alaska

AS 11.61.220. Misconduct Involving Weapons in the Fifth Degree.

(a) A person commits the crime of misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree if the person

(1) is 21 years of age or older and knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocket knife or a defensive weapon,

(A) that is concealed on the person,and, when contacted by a peace officer, the person fails to

(i) immediately inform the peace officer of that possession; or

(ii) allow the peace officer to secure the deadly weapon, or fails to secure the weapon at the direction of the peace officer, during the duration of the contact;

(B) that is concealed on the person within the residence of another person unless the person has first obtained the express permission of an adult residing there to bring a concealed deadly weapon within the residence;

(2) knowingly possesses a loaded firearm on the person in any place where intoxicating liquor is sold for consumption on the premises;

(3) being an unemancipated minor under 16 years of age, possesses a firearm without the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor;

(4) knowingly possesses a firearm

(A) within the grounds of or on a parking lot immediately adjacent to a center, other than a private residence, licensed under AS 14.37, AS 47.33, or AS 47.35 or recognized by the federal government for the care of children;

(B) within a

(i) courtroom or office of the Alaska Court System; or

(ii) courthouse that is occupied only by the Alaska Court System and other justice-related agencies; or

(C) within a domestic violence or sexual assault shelter that receives funding from the state;

(5) possesses or transports a switchblade or a gravity knife; or

(6) is less than 21 years of age and knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, other than an ordinary pocket knife or a defensive weapon, that is concealed on the person.

(b) In a prosecution under (a)(6) of this section, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant, at the time of possession, was

(1) in the defendant's dwelling or on land owned or leased by the defendant appurtenant to the dwelling; or

(2) actually engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or other lawful outdoor activity that necessarily involves the carrying of a weapon for personal protection.

(c) The provisions of (a)(2) and (4) of this section do not apply to a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's employment.

(d) In a prosecution under (a)(2) of this section, it is

(1) an affirmative defense that

(A) the defendant, at the time of possession, was the holder of a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun under AS 18.65.700 - 18.65.790 or was considered a permittee under AS 18.65.748

(B) the loaded firearm was a concealed handgun as defined in AS 18.65.790; and

(C) the possession occurred at a place designated as a restaurant for the purposes of AS 04.16.049 and the defendant did not consume intoxicating liquor at the place;

(2) a defense that the defendant, at the time of possession, was on business premises

(A) owned by or leased by the defendant; or

(B) in the course of the defendant's employment for the owner or lessee of those premises.

(e) For purposes of this section, a deadly weapon on a person is concealed if it is covered or enclosed in any manner so that an observer cannot determine that it is a weapon without removing it from that which covers or encloses it or without opening, lifting, or removing that which covers or encloses it; a deadly weapon on a person is not concealed if it is an unloaded firearm encased in a closed container designed for transporting firearms.

(f) For purposes of (a)(2) and (e) of this section, a firearm is loaded if the

(1) firing chamber, magazine, clip, or cylinder of the firearm contains a cartridge; and

(2) chamber, magazine, clip, or cylinder is installed in or on the firearm.

(g) Misconduct involving weapons in the fifth degree is a class B misdemeanor.

(h) The provisions of (a)(1)and (6) of this section do not apply to a

(1) peace officer of this state or a municipality of this state acting within the scope and authority of the officer's employment;

(2) peace officer employed by another state or a political subdivision of another state who, at the time of the possession, is

(A) certified as a peace officer by the other state; and

(B) acting within the scope and authority of the officer's employment; or

(3) police officer of this state or a police officer or chief administrative officer of a municipality of this state; in this paragraph, "police officer" and "chief administrative officer" have the meanings given in AS 18.65.290 .

(i) In a prosecution

(1) under (a)(4)(B) of this section, it is a defense that the defendant, at the time of possession, was authorized to possess the firearm under a rule of court;

(2) under (a)(4)(C) of this section, it is a defense that the defendant, at the time of possession, was authorized in writing by the administrator of the shelter to possess the firearm.

(j) In (a)(1) of this section, "contacted by a peace officer" means stopped, detained, questioned, or addressed in person by the peace officer for an official purpose.

Sec. 18.65.748. Permit holders from other jurisdictions considered Alaska permit holders. A person holding a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun from another state or a political subdivision of another state is a permittee under 25 AS 18.65.700(b) for purposes of AS 18.65.755 - 18.65.765 if the person has not had an application for a concealed handgun permit rejected in this state because the person was unqualified under AS 18.65.705 or had a concealed handgun permit revoked or suspended by this state.

Sec. 18.65.770. Permits, applications, and other materials not public records. Applications, permits, and renewals are not public records under AS 40.25.110 - 5 40.25.125 and may only be used for law enforcement purposes.

---------------------------------------
1. David Kopel, "Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control," [Cato Institute] Policy Analysis 109 (July 11, 1988): 25-26.
2. Supreme Court of Indiana, Kellogg v. City of Gary, 1990.
3. Joseph McNamara, Safe & Sane, (1984): 74.
4. Peter Finn, "FBI Stops Checking Va. Gun Applicants," The Washington Post, 12 July 1996.
5. In a court hearing to have the license returned, the judge in the case admitted that the individual did not meet the criteria for a revocation (i.e., he had never engaged in acts of violence or made threats of violence) but agreed to uphold the revocation anyway. The justification the judge gave was that the abortion issue was "a volatile one" and people involved in it should not be allowed to carry guns. A friend of the "defendant" made a routine inquiry to the sheriff's department to see if any abortion doctors or activists had their licenses revoked. By Oregon law this is public information. He was immediately visited by four FBI agents who demanded to know the reason for the request. Statement by Kevin Starrett, Oregon Representative for Gun Owners of America, August 21, 1995.
6. North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia are just three examples where local newspapers have printed the names of concealed carry permit holders.
7. Kopel, "Trust the People," at 26.
8. U.S. News & World Report, (17 January 1994): 8.
9. Morgan Quitno Press, Crime State Rankings 1996, at iv.
10. John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago, (13 July 1996). See also Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996).
11. Ibid.
12. Any waiting period -- whether the wait to buy a gun, or the wait to get a carry permit -- can have disastrous consequences. While most of the examples listed here relate to gun purchase waiting periods, the principle is the same. Waiting periods put one's rights on hold; and when one is in immediate danger, the result can be death.
13. Senate, "Handgun Violence," at 107, citing Novae Russkae Slovo, Vol. LXXII, No. 26.291, (6 Nov. 1983).
14. Stephen Singular, Talked to Death: The Murder of Alan Berg and the Rise of the Neo-Nazis, (1987): 137-138. Since he was shot from behind, one could possibly argue that a gun might not have helped him. Of course, had Berg received a carry permit, one can never be sure if his being armed would have served as a deterrent to the killer, who had stalked him for some time. Regardless, the point is that he should have been able to defend himself.
15. Congressional Record, 8 May 1991, pp. H 2859, H 2862.
16. Jonathan T. Lovitt, "Survival for the armed," USA Today, 4 May 1992.
17. Wall Street Journal, 3 March 1994 at A10.
18. On August 16, 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins signed Local Law 78 which banned the possession and sale of certain rifles and shotguns.
19. John Marzulli, "Weapons ban defied: S.I. man, arsenal seized," Daily News, 5 September 1992.
20. David Kopel, "Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control," [Cato Institute] Policy Analysis 109 (July 11, 1988):25.
21. Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman and Alan M. Rice, Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide, (Milwaukee: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 1994).
22. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 85 S. Ct. 1493, 14 L. Ed. 2d 398 (1965).
23. Kleck, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, (1991):111-116, 148.
24. George F. Will, "Are We 'a Nation of Cowards'?," Newsweek (15 November 1993):93.

Bookmark and Share:

WASHINGTON Burglars in the United States could once sue homeowners if they were shot, but now a growing number of states have made it legal to shoot to kill when somebody breaks into a house.

John Woodson, 46, found that out last week when he ambled into Dennis Baker's open garage in a Dallas suburb. A surveillance video showed the robber strolling inside, hands in his pockets.

From the shadows, Baker opened fire and killed Woodson.

"I just had to protect myself and that was it," Baker told reporters despite the fact Woodson had not tried to enter the bedroom near the garage where Baker had been sleeping.

The incident made national headlines since it was Baker's parrot that gave the alarm when it innocently squawked "good morning" at the intruder.

But Woodson's death seemed anecdotal compared to another Dallas resident who a few days earlier had killed his second robber in three weeks inside his home.

Police are investigating both cases, but it is unlikely charges will be filed. Texas recently passed a law branding anybody breaking into a home or car as a real threat of injury or death to its occupants.

In contrast with traditional self-defense laws, this measure does not require that a person who opens fire on a burglar be able to prove that he or she was physically threatened, that force was used only as a last resort and that the victim had first tried to hide.

Florida was the first state to adopt in 2005 a law that was dubbed "Stand your ground" or "Shoot first."

But now they have proliferated largely under pressure from the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), the main weapons lobby in the United States.

Today 19 out of 50 US states, mostly in the south and the central regions of the country, have this kind of laws, and similar legislation is pending in about a dozen others.

"This law will bring common-sense self-defense protections to law-abiding citizens," said Rachel Parsons, a spokesperson for the NRA.

"If someone is breaking into your home, it's obvious that they are not there to have dinner with you," she continued. "You do have a right to protect your belongings, your family and yourself.

"The law needs to be put on the side of the victim, and not on the side of the criminal, who is attacking the victim."

But for the Freedom States Alliance that fights against the proliferation of firearms in the United States, these new laws attach more value to threatened belongings than to the life of the thief and only serve to increase the number of people killed by firearms each year, which currently is estimated to stand at nearly 30,000.

"It's that whole Wild West mentality that is leading the country down a very dangerous path," said Sally Slovenski, executive director of the alliance.

"In any other country, something like the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws look like just absolute lunacy," she continued.

"And yet in this country, somehow it's been justified, and people just sort of have come to live with this, and they just don't see the outrage in this."

According to Federal Bureau of Investigation, there were 2.18 million burglaries to the United States in 2006, up 1.3 percent compared to the year before.

But the number is still well below the 3.24 million burglaries a year committed 20 years ago.

WASHINGTON  Burglars in the United States could once sue homeowners if they were shot, but now a growing number of states have made it legal to shoot to kill when somebody breaks into a house.

John Woodson, 46, found that out last week when he ambled into Dennis Baker's open garage in a Dallas suburb. A surveillance video showed the robber strolling inside, hands in his pockets.

From the shadows, Baker opened fire and killed Woodson.

"I just had to protect myself and that was it," Baker told reporters despite the fact Woodson had not tried to enter the bedroom near the garage where Baker had been sleeping.

The incident made national headlines since it was Baker's parrot that gave the alarm when it innocently squawked "good morning" at the intruder.

But Woodson's death seemed anecdotal compared to another Dallas resident who a few days earlier had killed his second robber in three weeks inside his home.

Police are investigating both cases, but it is unlikely charges will be filed. Texas recently passed a law branding anybody breaking into a home or car as a real threat of injury or death to its occupants.

In contrast with traditional self-defense laws, this measure does not require that a person who opens fire on a burglar be able to prove that he or she was physically threatened, that force was used only as a last resort and that the victim had first tried to hide.

Florida was the first state to adopt in 2005 a law that was dubbed "Stand your ground" or "Shoot first."

But now they have proliferated largely under pressure from the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), the main weapons lobby in the United States.

Today 19 out of 50 US states, mostly in the south and the central regions of the country, have this kind of laws, and similar legislation is pending in about a dozen others.

"This law will bring common-sense self-defense protections to law-abiding citizens," said Rachel Parsons, a spokesperson for the NRA.

"If someone is breaking into your home, it's obvious that they are not there to have dinner with you," she continued. "You do have a right to protect your belongings, your family and yourself.

"The law needs to be put on the side of the victim, and not on the side of the criminal, who is attacking the victim."

But for the Freedom States Alliance that fights against the proliferation of firearms in the United States, these new laws attach more value to threatened belongings than to the life of the thief and only serve to increase the number of people killed by firearms each year, which currently is estimated to stand at nearly 30,000.

"It's that whole Wild West mentality that is leading the country down a very dangerous path," said Sally Slovenski, executive director of the alliance.

"In any other country, something like the castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws look like just absolute lunacy," she continued.

"And yet in this country, somehow it's been justified, and people just sort of have come to live with this, and they just don't see the outrage in this."

According to Federal Bureau of Investigation, there were 2.18 million burglaries to the United States in 2006, up 1.3 percent compared to the year before.

But the number is still well below the 3.24 million burglaries a year committed 20 years ago.