[3 items: 1. If you're in NY state or know someone there stop the blanket semi-auto ban!!! 2. The Counterterrorism bill threatens the rights of peaceful gun onwers. 3. Don't let the BATF block pre-ban imported magazines in direct violation of Clinton's Crime Bill.] __ Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 00:33:53 -0400 From: alerts@gatekeeper.nra.org (NRA Alerts) To: firearms-alert@shell.portal.com Subject: ALERT: NY - Assembly Passed Ban on Semi-Automatic Firearms, on to Senate May 24, 1995 New York: Monday, the State Assembly voted 75-67 to pass AB 6821, an outright ban on the sale AND the possession of most semi-automatic firearms, including ANY rifles, shotgun or pistols capable of holding 10 rounds or more (including the round in the chamber) or capable of accepting an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 10 rounds or more. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. Members should call their State Senators and urge them to oppose AB 6821. __ From: LEROY.PYLE@prn-bbs.org (LEROY PYLE) Subject: GOA on Anti-Terrorism Bil To: firearms-alert@shell.portal.com, ca-firearms@shell.portal.com Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 20:54:50 GMT Senate Expected to Soon Vote on "Anti-terrorism" Bill S. 735 threatens gun owners' rights; calls needed by Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 (703)321-8585; fax: (8408) (Tuesday, May 23)-- Sources in the U.S. Senate are indicating that a vote is expected by the end of the week on so-called anti-terrorism legislation. The bill under discussion, S.735, would threaten gun owners rights unless certain provisions are removed. S. 735 was, introduced by Senators Bob Dole and Orrin Hatch, has a firearms conspiracy provision which would remove the "overt act" requirement that currently exists under federal law. This provision would allow the BATF and federal prosecu- tors to punish law-abiding citizens for far-reaching conspiracy charges (including simple paperwork and technical violations) even though no overt act was committed. For example, a woman goes to a gun dealer and indicates that she is being pursued, that she needs a handgun for self- defense, and that she cannot wait for the five days required by the Brady Law. The gun dealer indicates that he will sell her the gun, but, a second later, recants and refuses to con- summate the transaction. Under S. 735, the dealer would be as guilty of a violation of the Brady Law as if he had completed the sale. (Punishing words without acts has traditionally been avoided by common law because it comes perilously close to incarcerating law-abiding citizens for mere speech. Under current law, conspiracy must involve an action. But even this requirement can be abused by federal prosecutors. Con- sider that when the feds brought conspiracy charges against Randy Weaver, they had to really stretch the bounds of cred- ulity to support that claim. The feds argued that because Weaver had moved from Iowa to Idaho, this act supposedly showed he was conspiring to have an armed confrontation with the gov- ernment! Imagine what prosecutors could do with a conspiracy statute that doesn't even require them to demonstrate any act at all. With no overt act requirement, it would be a lot easier for prosecutors to merely invent a claim based on some hypo- thetical agreement.) S. 735 will also allow the federal government to revoke the tax status of any group (including GOA, NRA, etc.) for failing to give its membership list to the government. This broad net can destroy any group that has serious complaints against the government. Other unconstitutional provisions in S. 735 include provisions which would: preempt state law enforcement efforts in many circumstances which are primarily of local concern, broaden the authority of the FBI to make demands of citizens not suspected of crimes; and in general, increase the ability of government to intrude on the privacy and rights of individuals. HERE'S WHAT TO DO: Call your Senators (202-224-3121) and ask them to oppose any "anti-terrorist" legislation that would infringe on gun owners" rights. Tell them that S. 735, as written, is unaccep- table. Encourage them to get tough on the perpetrators of crime, not to vote for legislation that sacrifices your liberties. Tell them we already have an effective deterrent against terrorism. It's called capital punishment. Let's use it. =========================================================================== Bypassing the bias of broadcast media with the "narrowcast" function of the telephone line's information SuperHiway! The Paul Revere Network with 150+ nodes worldwide! PRNet/HQ in Chicago, IL (312) 482-9940 BBS (312) 482-9910 voice =========================================================================== __ From: gray@unirsvl.rsvl.unisys.com (Bill Gray ) Subject: ACTION: BATF Magazine Import Ban Comments To: firearms-alert@shell.portal.com (Firearms Alert) Date: Tue, 2 May 95 17:52:34 CDT I received this from Joe Olson, GOAL member and member of the NRA Board of Directors. Please take action as soon as possible. Spread the word. > Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 08:58:00 -0500 (CDT) > From: Joseph Olson > To: gray@winternet.com > Subject: GET BATF MAGAZINE.BAN (1/1) (fwd) > Message-Id: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > > Pro-gun people need to send comment to BATF about this issue as the > proposed regulationd BAN imported magazines whenever made. You can make > the same points as those made in this Senate Letter. Regs are in April > 5, 1995 Federal Register. Comment period is open for 90 days. Send > comment letters (no special format required) to: Chief, Regulation > Branch; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; Washington, DC > 20091-0221. The more comment letters sent in the better the chance the > agency will feel the heat and therefore see the light. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 15:56:09 -0400 > From: listproc@gatekeeper.nra.org > To: jolson@seq.hamline.edu > Subject: GET BATF MAGAZINE.BAN (1/1) > > Archive BATF, file magazine.ban. > Part 1/1, total size 7065 bytes: > > ------------------------------ Cut here ------------------------------ > January 10, 1995 > > Mr. John W. Magaw, Director > Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms > Department of the Treasury > 650 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. > Washington, D.C. 20226 > > Dear Mr. Magaw: > > We have been informed that BATF is enforcing the provisions of the > Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 ("the Act") > concerning firearms magazines with an interpretation contrary to the > language of the Act. We strongly object to the Bureau's apparent > efforts to circumvent the will of Congress in this matter. > > The Act amended 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922 by adding a new subsection (w) to > prohibit the transfer or possession of certain firearms magazines > categorized as "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" -- by > definition, those manufactured after the date of enactment, September > 13, 1994. > > Since the date of enactment of the Act, BATF has refused to allow the > importation of any magazines having a capacity of more than ten > rounds, regardless of the date of manufacture. Unofficially BATF > professes to be still "studying" this issue, and has made no formal > announcement of its policy. However, recent shipments of such > magazines manufactured before the date of enactment have been > impounded by U.S.Customs, acting on instructions from BATF. > > The term "large capacity ammunition feeding device" is a new term of > art introduced by the Act. An addition to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921(a) > --the "Definitions" section of the Gun Control Act-- specified what > this term of art means. Paragraph (31) now provides: > > "The term large capacity feeding device'_ > > (A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device > manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control > and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can > be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of > ammunition, but > > (B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, > and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition." > > It is an elementary rule of statutory construction that where a > limitation is expressed in the definition of a term of art, such > limitation is implicit in every provision to which the term of art > applies. In each instance that the phrase "large capacity ammunition > feeding device" appears in the Act, it can refer only to a device > manufactured after September, 13, 1994. Thus the prohibition on > transfer or possession contained in sec, 922(w)(1) does not encompass > any magazines manufactured before that date, regardless of where it > was made or where it currently reposes. Therefore, BATF has no > authority to deny its importation. > > It has been suggested that this interpretation might require the Act > to be given extraterritorial effect. That is patently incorrect. > Such a view erroneously focuses on sec. 922(w)(2), a "grandfather" > clause which exempts from the prohibition any magazine "otherwise > lawfully possessed" prior to the effective date of the Act. However, > it is the definition quoted above which controls the scope of the > prohibition in the first place --not this exemption. Obviously > Congress has no jurisdiction to prohibit (or exempt) the transfer or > possession of any magazine by non-Americans outside the United States > --but that does not prevent Congress from limiting the meaning of > "large capacity ammunition feeding device" according to any criteria > it chooses to use. > > In specifically limiting the prohibited magazines to those made after > September 13,1994, Congress has followed much the same course as with > the firearms themselves. In 1968, Congress defined "firearm" as a term > of art to encompass only those manufactured after 1898. Those made > before simply are not covered by the Act. In 26 years no one has ever > suggested that this definition did not apply to any firearm in the > world, or that BATF had any statutory authority to deny the > importation of one manufactured before 1898. > > We are aware that concerns have been expressed that, with respect to > imported magazines, certain difficulties may arise in administering > the law. However, that is much more the case with respect to > domestically-made magazines. Before final passage the Act was > deliberately amended to include unprecedented safeguards regarding > the burden of proof (indeed, even a presumption of exclusion from the > Act) and other provisions to protect the citizenry from overzealous > BATF enforcement. Under these circumstances it would be very > disturbing if BATF refused to accept the statute as written. > > While BATF can ask Congress to change the law, it has no authority to > unilaterally amend it with an interpretation inconsistent with its > plain language. The Supreme Court, in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural > Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S.837 (1984), set forth a > two-step process for judicial review of an agency's interpretation of > a statute: > > First, "is the question of whether Congress has directly spoken to > the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, > that is the end of the matter."1 Second, where "the statute is silent > or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the > court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible > construction of the stature."2 > > An application of the Chevron two-step analysis to the situation at > hand, renders it unnecessary to reach the second step. Congress has > spoken directly to the issue of exactly what criteria must be met to > bring a magazine under the jurisdiction of the magazine provisions in > the Act. As stated above, the definition of a large capacity > ammunition feeding device' requires that the magazine must have been > "manufactured after the date of enactment" of the Act before it can > be brought under the influence of the Act. Therefore magazines > manufactured within, or outside of, the boundaries of the U.S. before > September 13, 1994, do not meet the statutory definition of a 'large > capacity ammunition feeding device'. > > A review of the second step of the Chevron test only serves to > further substantiate the result reached above in the first step. If > the agency attempts to interpret the statute such that high-capacity > magazines must not only have been manufactured, but also imported on > or before the date of enactment of the Act, it is clear that such a > result would not be "based on a permissible construction of the > statute." Although agencies have substantial discretion in their > executive role of implementators and interpreters of the law, they > may not reinvent that which Congress has already made clear in its > legislative role as architects of the law. > > Accordingly, we would like to be informed immediately of BATF's > official position on this issue. Furthermore, if your agency > proposes to deny importation of pre-enactment magazines, I would like > a detailed explanation regarding the precise legal grounds upon which > such action is justified. > > We would like your response within 10 days of receipt of this letter. > > Sincerely, > > Letter signed by Senators Orrin Hatch, Howell Heflin and Larry Craig > > > 1. Chevron, 467 U.S. U.S. At 842 > > 2. Id. Regards, Bill -- gray@RSVL.UNISYS.COM Unisys has enough problems without being blamed for my personal opinions.