Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 10:42:34 -0500 From: "Christopher W. Knox" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: FCO 3-16-95 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ===================================================================== Online Report to the F I R E A R M S C O A L I T I O N Box 6537, Silver Spring, MD 20916 ===================================================================== March 16, 1995 Vol. 2, No. 3 ===================================================================== In this issue: * NRA Board Picks -- Let's keep NRA strong * All-Out Offense -- Gun rights movement no paper tiger * BATF's At It Again -- It's not a database, it's an index... * NRA Challenges Ban -- Legislators don't know what they banned * Updates -- Carry bills moving all over country ===================================================================== A note from Chris The flurry of "we view with alarm" editorials all over the major media should give you a clue that things are happening. Good things. The gun rights movement is on the offense. And walking point is NRA. NRA has long had its critics within the gun rights community. I know a couple of them personally. While I won't defend everything I saw NRA do in the November elections, I will say this: No organization in the country is more important to your gun rights. I've read a good deal of hyperventilating in the Net over NRA's refusal to endorse alternative candidates. I've heard that NRA has betrayed its principles by backing instant check bills. I've seen NRA for backing licensed concealed carry when so many of us agree that the most successful model is in Vermont where you can legally pack iron in your shoulder holster without asking the state's permission. And in general, I agree with all of the above. But the fact is that like it or not, NRA is the only serious game in town. If you don't have NRA, you don't have your guns. It's that simple. If you don't like what NRA does, then you have a duty to change it. And the way to change it is to take a hand in running it. If you have a ballot in your magazine, then you have a duty to fill it out and send it in. Don't like any of the candidates? Write one in. A ballot with a vote for a single candidate is a vote against the rest. Whatever you do, don't stand on the sidelines and whine. Take a part. CWK ======================================================================== PGP Users: Be sure to remove the leading asterisks before using this key. Key also available via finger. cknox@crl.com *-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- *Version: 2.6.2 * *mQCNAy8Q4mIAAAEEALKdSCTF6BvTg4luk1IOYtiQyxPotnTjjijSawo9htwZeFS/ *KU0WAPkeDuhgKSN3H5242irpkfUu8g84fAPBH6a6joaFN7OchRa49WXnz2dReT0V *iT9xeec9rPSASH04dz+lEONeDZ17yh/JGt+tjYq0CIenFZ9JMCGz4I2lBJDFAAUR *tCdDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBXYXJyZW4gS25veCA8Y2tub3hAY3JsLmNvbT4= *=Sz/w *-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Disclaimer: Chris Knox wrote and is solely responsible for everything above this line (except where explicitly noted below). ======================================================================== Vote To Keep NRA On Course By NEAL KNOX When President Bill Clinton declares "The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House," that is historic. When newly elected House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the top leadership of the House meets for 1 1/2 uninterrupted hours with NRA leaders to plan "a coherent strategy to define gun ownership as a Constitutional right, not a duck hunting right," that is historic. When the Speaker of the House writes the Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, "As long as I am Speaker of the House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of the House and there will be no more erosion of their rights," that is historic. The credit for those historic events belong to you, the voting members of the NRA. This reversal of the fortunes of NRA can be traced straight back to your support for the candidates recommended by Second Amendment Action. And that's a fact. Because you have steadfastly supported a strong, no-compromise NRA, and were a key factor in replacing the old Board with Second Amendment-focussed Directors, you changed history! Just four years ago, you elected me and ten other Second Amendment Action candidates to the Board of Directors. You started toppling this row of dominoes by working to elect S.A.A. candidates in 1991. Eleven of us -- including Tanya Metaksa, Weldon Clark and me -- were seated that year. The first thing we did was elect ILA Director Wayne LaPierre as Executive Vice President -- over the strong, but unspoken objections of Directors who wanted to go another direction (and some of those who are left still do). The following year, enough Second Amendment-minded candidates were added to the Board to begin repairing the damages of the Cassidy years. We couldn't repeal history, but we turned around the slide toward compromise. Last February, Tanya -- who defeated the 1976 Massachusetts handgun ban, who was my deputy at ILA, and was my campaign manager in the Executive Vice President races of 1985 and 1987 -- was appointed Executive Director of the NRA Institute by EVP Wayne (who Tanya had originally hired for NRA). Tanya took over ILA like a whirlwind, in the middle of an anti- gun tornado -- with the Brady Law just having been signed, the Feinstein semi-auto and magazine ban having passed the Senate and on a fast track in the House. Despite the odds, she almost stopped it. Then, with the full support of Wayne and a solid majority of the Board, and the most extensive grass roots member involvement in NRA history, Tanya led us to victory in the elections. A year ago, NRA was being called a has-been and never-was. Now the President of the United States is blaming NRA for costing him 20 House seats -- and the "Cleveland Plain Dealer," the largest newspaper in the state of Ohio -- runs the story under a huge-type, page-wide banner headline: "Clinton Blames NRA For Losses." But there's a growing effort by some of the former directors to get back on the Board. They're sowing fear in the hearts of NRA members -- and hope in the hearts of our enemies -- by misrepresenting NRA's financial condition and condemning Wayne, Tanya and me for "turning NRA into a political party." Former Director Dave Edmondson, who has formed the "State Association Coordinating Committee," has blasted Second Amendment Action Directors in the Wall Street Journal, National Journal, Esquire and on ABC Day One. He, and others, have been attempting to get the firearms industry to support ads for their Board candidates by claiming that "with a wink and a nod" NRA could have increased the magazine capacity restriction to 15 rounds and stricken the AR-15 from the crime bill's list of banned guns, if we "hadn't been hung up on 'no- compromise.'" That story has appeared in "Gun Tests," "American Handgunner," "Shotgun Sports" and elsewhere. It's not true -- but it is true that former Judiciary Chairman Jack Brooks tried to put together such a deal. It would have required NRA-ILA to support the rest of the gun and magazine ban. The Old NRA almost certainly would have agreed. Because Tanya refused, we were able to target candidates who supported the so-called "assault weapon" ban, sweep the elections and remove Turncoat Tom Foley as Speaker of the House. It was the first time an incumbent Speaker had been defeated in 130 years. Again, that's how you -- as one of the supporters of Federation for NRA/Second Amendment Action candidates -- made history. So NRA can continue making history ... So we can continue to repair the damage from earlier years ... So we can continue down the path to preservation and restoration of gun rights ... I ask that you support the following candidates, all of them nominated by the Nominating Committee. Mike Baker, Mike Beko, Ray Cahen, Sue Caplan, Jim Church, Ronin Colman, Robert K. Corbin, Sen. Larry Craig, Dan Fiora, Sandra Froman, Tom Geiler , Wesley Grogan, David Gross, Fred Griisser, Marion Hammer, Don Henry, Russ Howard, Susan Howard, T.J. Johnston, Phil Journey, Michael Kindberg, Sue King, John Milius, Ted Nugent, John O'Donnell, Harold (Bud) Schroeder, Bob Viden, Glen Voorhees. Note: The 32 Nominating Committee recommendations for the 28 seats to be filled appear in their report just ahead of the ballot. Though I support all the 31 Nominating Committee candidates (one has withdrawn), I repeatedly have been asked in the past to recommend the exact number of candidates for the places to be filled. It's a difficult choice, for I know and like each of the Nominating Committee's candidates. But the listed 28 candidates are those to whom I feel closest. (My list includes former Director and newly hired ILA Liaison Fred Griisser, who will have to choose whether to again resign from the Board if he wishes to remain a salaried employee.) ===================================================================== All-Out Offense By NEAL KNOX WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 10) -- For years, gun owners have asked: "When is NRA going on offense." Now. NRA-ILA is running flat out, on more fronts than it has people, which means that a lot of the ILA staff, from Tanya Metaksa on down are pulling two rows (as they used to say in the cotton fields). On Capitol Hill, we're on the verge of three or more hearings on Federal abuses on both the House and Senate side -- not just BATF -- and not just law enforcement. That will be followed by a House floor vote in mid-May and appropriations and oversight hearings for numerous agencies and departments which directly affect firearms owners. In the states, three more legislatures -- Utah, Arkansas and Virginia -- have passed laws requiring the issuance of concealed firearms carrying licenses for qualified applicants. Similar NRA-pushed personal protection bills are moving in almost a dozen states, some of which are expected to be passed. And on the educational front NRA Foundation and other groups, including the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Congress of Racial Equality and the Second Amendment Foundation, are sponsoring a Second Amendment symposium April 2-4 that brings together some of the top scholars and students of the gun issue - - - with all viewpoints being represented on the panels. In addition to political speakers like Presidential candidates Bob Dole and Phil Gramm, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, panelists will include leading Second Amendment scholars, legal specialists, medical experts and media representatives (including former NBC News President Michael Gartner, who has advocated repeal of the Second Amendment). The program, which should qualify as "continuing education" for lawyers and some academics, carries a stiff $395 registration fee, which will limit the attendance. Hopefully it will attract significant press coverage, including portions on C-Span. Videotapes of the entire conferences, written transcripts, and reference books -- including a reprint of the Judiciary Committee's 1982 Second Amendment staff report, with a revised forward by Sen. Hatch -- will be available at reasonable cost. The nationwide push for personal protection permits is causing much bleating and handwringing in the press, but the primary focus during the next couple of months will be the Congressional firearms hearings. All the details haven't been worked out, but I've seen the general outline of some of those hearings -- the first of which is likely to be in late March -- and you're going to like them. And Sarah Brady won't. For one thing, in contrast to the way things normally are handled in gun hearings, our witnesses are likely to be scheduled first; their witnesses last, after the press deadlines and after all the cameras have long-since gone. (I was introduced to that tactic in 1967 during my first Congressional testimony, as editor of Gun Week before Sen. Tom Dodd's committee on his "mail order gun" bill, which became the Gun Control Act of '68. Gun rights activist and then-official of Amnesty International Mark K. Benenson and I were the last called, finally testifying around 6 p.m. on the third day.) Hearings concerning BATF's appropriations -- undoubtedly getting into whether they have violated previous appropriations restrictions and law by gathering and computerizing dealer sales records -- are set in the Senate for this month. Another issue likely to come up is the much-rumored BATF reorganization, which is also prohibited by their appropriations bill unless Congress specifically approves. Treasury Secretary Ronald Noble suggested reorganization in December after the White Office of Management and Budget proposed cutting BATF's agents and budgets to pay for part of the crime bill. Noble called the proposed cut "stupid." President Clinton did not include the OMB's proposed cut in his budget package. However, rumors are flying that BATF is either going to be folded into other Treasury law enforcement agencies or parceled out. None of the agencies want BATF's agents, according to the rumors, but because mass firing is unlikely, many would be transferred to the Border Patrol. Enforcement of the gun laws would go to FBI, while the issuing of licenses and similar paperwork would go to the Internal Revenue Service. Remember: It's all rumor. What will happen, if anything, isn't decided, but a lot of talking is going on. ===================================================================== BATF's At It Again By NEAL KNOX WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 1) -- Last spring BATF Special Agent Pat Hynes gave ABC Day 1 host Forrest Sawyer a tour of their new West Virginia records center. "Right now there's 20 million (out of business gun dealer) records here," he said. "We've already computerized 60 million." That exchange, reported in my June 20, 1994 Shotgun News column, set off alarm bells all across the country for Sec. 926 of the 1986-amended Gun Control Act prohibits "records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, (being) recorded at or transferred to a (U.S. or State) facility ... nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established." Further, since 1978, when BATF and the Carter White House attempted to create a national gun registration by issuing new regulations, the Treasury appropriations bill has declared: "That no funds appropriated herein shall be available for ... expenses in connection with consolidating or centralizing .. the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms licensees." As the then-Director of NRA ILA, I helped write that language and pointed out to the late Chairman of the Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, Tom Steed (D-Okla.), that since BATF had "found" the $4.2 million first-year cost in their existing budget, for an unauthorized program that ignored 15 or so Congressional rejections of gun registration laws, they obviously didn't need that money. Mr. Tom agreed, and chopped the $4.2 mill out of their budget - -- which had a marvelous effect on BATF's behavior for several years. (BATF has attempted to strike that appropriation restriction every year since, including this year, and has often specifically attempted to get permission to computerize the sales records of former dealers.) In a Feb. 6 letter to Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Director Magaw said BATF agent Hynes' comments were "misunderstood." He said BATF had received a lot of mail as a result of my Shotgun News article, and that what Hynes was referring to was "indexing of records of former firearms dealers." But during Feb. 15 hearings before the House Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee, Treasury Undersecretary Ronald K. Noble had a more disingenuous "explanation" for violating BATF's appropriations restriction. The records they are computerizing "by the semi truck load" aren't dealer records, he assured Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), but records from former dealers. Rep. Istook didn't buy it: "You're claiming that Congress gave you a loophole that you could drive one of those semis through!" The law and Treasury's appropriations restriction are clear, but in an anti-gun rights Administration, they thought they could get away with the violations -- as they did at Waco and Ruby Ridge. But BATF must have been stunned by the NRA's full page ad in this morning's Washington Post. It's a huge, dramatic picture of MP-5 machine gun-equipped BATF agents in helmets, goggles and flak jackets coming right at the reader. The two-inch type proclaims: "TELL THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE TO STAY OUT OF YOUR HOUSE." The subhead says BATF "has not only lost public trust, but deserves public contempt." The text slams BATF for "intimidation and harassment ... fabrication of criminal charges, even deadly assault ... and ... the Attorney General's proven willingness to use lethal force against innocents." "If the Clinton Administration does not rein in this rogue agency, then Congress should step in and abolish it altogether." Those are strong words. It's an issue that has been discussed, and even proposed, for years. Clearly, attempts to reform BATF haven't worked. The problem has been that other Federal law enforcement agencies didn't want BATF's cowboys because, as the head of Secret Service once told me, "Mix dirty water with clean water, you get dirty water." Maybe Congress should teach them Spanish and make them immigration control officers along the Mexican border. ===================================================================== NRA Challenges Ban By NEAL KNOX WASHINGTON, D.C. (Feb. 20) -- While NRA-ILA's lobbyists are attempting to repeal last year's ban on semi-autos and high- capacity magazines, ILA's lawyers have filed a lawsuit in a Michigan Federal court seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional. A Second Amendment challenge to the law is in the works, but the Michigan suit is an attempt to quickly set aside the law on the already-decided issue of "unconstitutional vagueness" and possibly the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court is now considering the Lopez case challenging the Federal law banning guns from within 1,000 feet of a school on grounds of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated by the Constitution to "the States and the People, respectively." If the Supreme Court rules the way a clear majority seemed to be leaning during oral argument (which occurred on Nov. 8, the day the voters rose up against intrusive government) many, if not most, Federal gun laws would be in deep trouble -- without the Second Amendment ever having been considered. The main thrust of "NRA, et al, v. Magaw and the United States" -- and the likely reason it was filed in Michigan -- is that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which encompasses Michigan) a few months ago struck down the 1989 Columbus, Ohio, ban on "assault weapons" as unconstitutionally vague. The Columbus ordinance, like the gun ban provisions in last year's crime act, Public Law 103-322, banned guns by specific model, but referred to them by the already-banned full automatic versions from which the targeted semi-autos were derived. P.L. 103-322 prohibits firearms "known as ... Avtomat Kalashnikovs" (literally Russian for "Kalashnikov Machinegun") and nine other models, seven of which are incorrectly identified by their full automatic names. For instance, Colt never manufactured the full-auto Armalite AR-15, which the law bans, and hadn't made the semi-auto AR-15A2 for years. That semi-auto was redesigned internally and retitled the Colt Sporter. Interestingly, the post-Sept. 13, 1994 version, which BATF has specifically approved, lacks a bayonet lug and has a crowned muzzle instead of a flash suppressor. That approval raised the ire of Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) because it is only"cosmetically" different from the models he wanted banned. Exactly. But when we gunowners attempted to make the point that the "bad" guns Congress was trying to ban differed only cosmetically from the "good" guns they said were okay, we were hooted out of hearings. The BATF-approved latest version of the Colt Sporter has the same size, weight, rate of fire and uses the same cartridge as the one Congress banned. That's also true of the Ruger Mini-14, which Congress specifically exempted. As NRA attorney David T. Hardy has pointed out, Congress knew it was using inaccurate nomenclature. Governmental firearms expert Harold Johnson testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (of which Biden was then chairman) that most of the named models were not semi-autos, but their fully automatic cousins. But Congress also banned any "copy or duplicate" of the named guns. The Sixth Circuit, in Springfield Armory v. City of Columbus, struck down the less-vague ordinance, which prohibited only "models by the same manufacturer with the same action design that have slight modifications or enhancements." In that case the court noted "Nor does the ordinance define 'same action design' or 'slight modifications.' We do not know whether a 'model by the same manufacturer' that fires twice as fast or twice as many bullets, or half as fast with half as many bullets, or some other combination of changes is a 'slight modification' of the 'same action design.'" The lesson of the court -- which will probably eventually here this case -- is that lawmakers must be precise, so everyone will know exactly what's legal and illegal. The law's drafters didn't know what they wanted to ban, other than as many guns as possible. And that's why the law was so vague. As always, how the court will rule is anyone's guess. But however they rule, on Constitutional Vagueness, the Tenth Amendment or the Second Amendment, it won't be the last word. ===================================================================== Feb. 24 update -- Attorney General Janet Reno held a press conference yesterday to boast that the Brady Bill had blocked the purchase of 40,000 handguns in its first year, supposedly because these were felons or mental incompetents. But a reporter asked how many had been prosecuted for lying on a government form or for attempting to make an illegal gun purchase. A Justice Department flunky flipped through his notebooks and came up with the answer. Would you believe FOUR? That's about one per million handgun purchases. Either 39,996 were wrongly denied a firearm or the Justice Department is woefully negligent. Which is it, Miss Reno? An NRA-supported right to carry bill was signed by Arkansas Gov. Guy Tucker this week, and the House Judiciary Committee has defeated a model HCI gun storage bill. In Virginia, another NRA-supported right to carry reform bill has passed both houses and is on its way to Gov. Allen, who is ready to sign it. Hearings will be held on similar legislation in Texas Tuesday. Tanya Metaksa is down there now. Right to carry bills also came out of committee in Kansas, New Mexio and Oklahoma. Just before she left, Tanya signed a letter to Treasury Secretary Rubin demanding that BATF stop illegally computerizing out-of-business firearms dealer records, and purge those recorded in violation of Sec. 926 of the Gun Control Act and restrictions in Treasury's appropriations bill. In Massachusetts, the Attorney General and anti-gun lawmakers have unveiled an omnibus gun bill that includes gun and magazine bans, licensing of currently owned semi-autos, and higher fees and stiffer requirements for firearms owner licenses. Massachusetts' Gun Owners Action League will hold a rally in the state house March 2. In St. Paul, Minn., City Council will vote on banning new gun shops March 1. A Milwaukee trigger lock ordinance was referred to a committee until next year. The NRA Board election ballots started hitting this week. If there's a ballot in your magazine, you're eligible to vote. I urge you to vote for 28 from among the 31 Nominating Committee nominees. It's critical to keep NRA going in its new direction. March 9 update -- The House has been working at a killing pace, long hours enacting their Contract With America at a rate usually seen only at the end of a legislative session. But meetings are going on concerning a variety of issues of great concern to gun owners, particularly the planning of hearings by the Firearms Task Force chaired by Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia. Just as Speaker Gingrich promised Wayne, Tanya and me in January, we should see two or three days of hearings before the scheduled May vote on repeal of the so-called "assault weapons" ban. Also, the building blocks are being put into place for hearings and other actions concerning a wide range of issues, including law enforcement abuses at Waco, Ruby Ridge and elsewhere. I met for a couple of hours Tuesday with the unusual coalition of groups -- which includes both NRA and ACLU -- that are trying to do something about such problems. One topic at that meeting, and a hot topic around Washington, is NRA's full page ads in national newspapers blasting BATF, and calling for them either to be brought under control or be abolished. The Treasury Department is screaming that BATF -- the same folks who gave us Waco -- is a model agency. There's a well-orchestrated defense of BATF from anti-gun rights groups and their allies in the political police organizations, mainly because the NRA ads are hitting paydirt. Despite an appropriations rider prohibiting spending money for BATF reorganization, Treasury has been looking at ways to fold BATF into Customs and Secret Service, or even the Internal Revenue Service, from whence they came. And FBI -- which has long been unhappy that BATF has been enforcing parts of the criminal law -- is trying to get BATF's operational functions and cases, but doesn't want BATF's agents. And neither do the other Treasury law enforcement agencies. Fourteen years ago, when the Reagan Administration wanted to fold BATF into Customs and Secret Service, the then-head of Secret Service told me "Mix dirty water with clean water, you get dirty water." Down in the state legislatures, no significant restrictions on gun rights are moving, but personal protection bills continue to move in nine states. A well-written right to carry bill was introduced in South Carolina last week with 106 of 124 legislators signed on as co-sponsors -- thanks largely to the efforts of NRA Director and candidate Herb Lanford. A vote on a less-perfect bill is expected on the floor of the Texas Senate next Wednesday. What a difference a year makes -- and an earthquake election. ===================================================================== March 15 update -- The Georgia legislature yesterday completed action on a handgun instant check bill that will free the state from the Brady law's 7-day wait. And despite a hundred hydrophobic editorials in the Atlanta Constitution, the legislature also overwhelmingly approved a preemption bill that strikes down Atlanta's stringent gun ordinance, as well as all other local gun laws in the state with one exception: the Kennesaw ordinance requiring each household to have a gun. That is truly twisting the knife! Gov. Zell Miller called ILA Director Tanya Metaksa yesterday afternoon and told her to come down for the signing ceremonies. He was one of the Democrats who NRA supported last fall. He has consistently supported gun rights and was the prime mover behind Georgia's liberalized carrying law in 1976. And in Oklahoma, the House joined the Senate in passing an NRA-supported carrying bill. It now goes to conference; when it comes out, Gov Keating is expected to sign it. That will make four states this year, on top of four last year. ABC News had a surprisingly balanced report Monday night about the flood of liberalized carrying laws being passed across the country. They pointed out that this is a reversal of the several-year trend toward laws to, as they put it, "get guns off the streets" by putting more guns on the street, but in the hands of law-abiding citizens. NRA wasn't mentioned in the ABC report, but rest assured that this sea-change didn't happen by accident. NRA is at last able to fight on offense. Yesterday's tentatively scheduled Texas Senate vote on a personal protection permit was delayed. Some needed improving amendments will be offered on the floor. New Mexico's carry bill stalled out last week, but you can bet on at least another one or two passing before the year is out. Handgun Control Inc. is going nuts. ======================================================================== Copyright 1994 by Neal Knox Associates P.O. Box 6537 Rockville, MD 20916. Reproduction and distribution of this bulletin by any means is encouraged so long as this statement is retained. ======================================================================== Do not put your credit card number in e-mail. ======================================================================== Dear Neal, I use the information you provide to protect my gun rights. Enclosed is my contribution so that you can continue your work: $500 [ ] $250 [ ] $50 [ ] $25 [ ] Other:____ [ ] Bill my MasterCard [ ] Visa [ ] Quarterly [ ]; Monthly [ ]; Once [ ] Card No. ______________________ Expiration Date _____ Mr. [ ] Mrs.[ ]______________________________ Signature ______________________ Ms. [ ] Address __________________________________________ Phone _______________ City _____________________________________________ State ____ Zip_______ Email Address ______________________ Print and mail to: Firearms Coalition Box 6537 Silver Spring, MD 20916 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBL2kfICGz4I2lBJDFAQEyBQP8DqpCMA1yR0KX11OoN3IOXZy7k/ISyO2a JtCHYqRdglw8fxaGvzyHF3XtPLPIJLAn094C5AyQ1AhHa3Ep/AmY+3YQVqxP9yfK KY5tOFXMNBSxgZZjAXcFL/RvVV6Dmvah+jAzkbjmZ6DSKZqrWQNg5hd7EHZ7Fjsp AqN7TGOylL0= =THY2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To receive the Online Firearms Coalition Bulletin send mail to listproc@mainstream.com containing in the message body: subscribe fco