From: Lawrence.V.Cipriani@att.com To: chan@shell.portal.com Date: Sat, 04 Mar 95 15:41:21 EST Subject: The PROponent MARCH 1995 The PROponent Peoples Rights Organization 5 E. Long St., Suite 412; Columbus, OH 43215; (614) 268-0122 Volume 7 March, 1995 Number 3 [headline] Ohio CCW! OHIO CCW BILL INTRODUCED ... The day that many PRO members have been waiting for has arrived with the introduction of the concealed carry bill, SB 68 by Senator Vukovich. Thus, this editor has finally ben forced to come to terms with CCW. I must admit that I am one of the ones who have long been opposed to such measures, not because I think citizens shouldn't have the right to carry a firearm, but rather because I think that they DO have the right. Concealed Carry of a Weapon (CCW) is, in effect, the turning of a Right already affirmed by the Constitution (to keep and bear, ie. carry) and in essence making it a government granted privilege. It institutes complete registration of all those granted such permission, complete with names, addresses, fingerprints, Citizen ID number and paperwork that must be kept at the ready for checking by the KGB. And what's worse, having turned a right into a privilege, it can just as easily be revoked with the registration records used to generate search warrants and confiscation plans. For these reasons, this editor has long favored Vermont-style CCW. In that state there is no license, no registration, and every law-abiding citizen is permitted carry for self-defense. There the emphasis is on punishment of those who abuse their rights rather than on the more "modern" idea of totalitarian restrictions on everyone (except those in power) because someone "might" do something illegal with their gun. But we live in a political reality. And the political reality is that if we stand in the road shouting "no compromise," we will just get run over. So now after all these years of standing on his soapbox lecturing gun owners on the importance of understanding the need for political maneuvering, your editor gets a dose of his own medicine. We simply have to take a page out of the gun-grabber manual with regard to this CCW thing. The sad reality is that while the Constitutions of The United States and Ohio guarantee the right to carry, in practice those rights are "void where prohibited by law." The best we've got is a "guilty unless you prove yourself innocent" French-style affirmative defense. The truth is that there is absolutely NO chance that a Vermont-style CCW bill could ever pass the Assembly. The plan has to be to set our sights on what we want and begin working just like the gun-grabbers... Chip, chip, chip. Therefore, I call upon all PRO members to support a CCW bill. PRO needs to call in all its political markers to get a proper CCW bill passed. BUT this bill in its present form is NOT proper. There is no question before that happens, we all need to call our state representative and senator and lobby not only for passage, but also to remove the worst features of the measure BEFORE it passes. In the analysis of the CCW bill by Larry Cipriani in the following article, you will read of a number of features that are important to change. The most important of these is to change "may issue" to "shall issue." Experiences in other states have shown that when the law is left as "may issue" many jurisdictions simply choose to issue none. Sure, that can be challenged in court and most such cases have been successful, but that takes time. Those areas which have by choice or by legal action been forced into "shall issue" granting of CCW permits demonstrate that such rules have no impact on criminal carry. Indeed, just the opposite is true. When CCW is left to the discretion of police and their political bosses, the likely result is a situation like Chicago in the '30s where every gangster had a license to carry but all honest citizens were denied unless they had political connections. We don't need that here. Another disgusting feature is the requirement to always have your "papers" ready for checking. Not having your papers is equivalent to carrying illegally. It's a sad commentary when we are ready to accept laws where not carrying a mere piece of paper makes a citizen a criminal. So start lobbying. Call your legislators and tell them that there is no way you can support a CCW bill that is not "must issue." Tell them that "checking papers crimes" are best left to Russia and countries of that ilk. Then, if and only if they fix it, support CCW for Ohio! AN ANALYSIS OF SB 68 ... by Larry Cipriani Neal Knox once pointed out that when analyzing proposed legislation, we should assume the worst. After all, the worst is always possible. In that light I have examined Senator Vukovich's S.B. 68, a bill to provide for a license to carry a concealed firearm. According to S.B. 68, the state attorney general will design both the concealed firearms license application and the concealed firearms license test. Furthermore, the state attorney general will set forth rules covering availability of applications, test procedure, grading procedure, and what determines a passing test score. The actual test, as proposed, will include knowledge of Ohio firearms laws and demonstrated competence in firearms handling. Finally, the license test will be administered and graded by county sheriffs. The county sheriffs must follow the rules as prescribed by the state attorney general. This seems innocent enough, but the Neal Knox in me has reservations. The difficulty of the written test could be flexible enough to assure that concealed weapons licenses are nondiscretionary in name only. Exactly how many items like "What's the 17th word in the 43rd paragraph of the test manual?" are we willing to tolerate so that only a sheriff's friends get licenses? Similarly, "competency in firearms handling" is flexible enough that the demon of discretionary licensing again rears its ugly head. To avoid this, I would prefer to see nationally recognized experts in firearms education have input on the content of the application and testing. The bill does not state what happens in the event a person fails the test. Must they wait to take it again, or are they never to get a license? The legislation must be modified to keep the identity of applicants and license holders confidential. Do you want your name listed in the newspaper as a holder of such a license? In 1981, such "burgle my house, please" lists were actually going to be published by the notoriously anti-gun Boston Globe, until they were stopped under court order. This problem can be prevented with appropriate modification to S.B. 68. Specifically, aggregate licensee information should be available for plaintiffs suing sheriffs for discrimination in license issuing. All other information should be denied to the general public. People who have already undergone a background check, such as someone with a security clearance, should be exempted from the background check requirement of S.B. 68. However, the written test is still appropriate. As S.B. 68 stands, license applications are free. The cost of processing a completed application is $20.00 plus the cost of conducting a criminal background check. The cost of a background check should be capped in the legislation. In practice, a sheriff could inflate this to whatever they want. The license application will require two sets of fingerprints, photographs, and successful completion of a criminal background check at the state level by the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation and the FBI. As a libertarian, this is offensive, but as a pragmatist this is acceptable. This next part of S.B. 68 is an outrage. Specifically, the license must be carried on your person any time you are carrying a concealed firearm. Failure to do so is the equivalent of carrying a concealed firearm without any license whatsoever! This is completely unacceptable: the physical license is no amulet of qualification. If carrying without the physical license places you in jeopardy of arrest, then proof of license possession later must cause all charges to be dropped. Specifically, the "affirmative defense" clause in the O.R.C. needs to have possession of a valid license included as an affirmative defense. Thus, "prudent man" and/or possession (but not necessarily on our about oneself at time of arrest) of a valid license to carry concealed should both be affirmative defenses. S.B. 68 stipulates the means by which the firearm is carried. This includes "... in a shoulder or waist belt holster, hipgrip, or other similar device or in a handbag, purse, attache case, briefcase, or other close container." Let me emphasize what this curious language is about. This is a blanket trump card for the police to arrest people, licensed or not, for illegally carrying a firearm. A few years ago, in late 1991, a friend and I were poring through the Ohio Revised Code and related case law for cases surrounding Ohio CCW. Two cases in particular come to mind. First, one guy was charged with CCW because, according to the arresting officer, the holster *partially concealed* the pistol. The holster was, of course, in plain view. Second, another guy openly carrying was charged because, according to the arresting officer, the sun had gone down and therefore his firearm was concealed by the darkness of night. Both of these arrests were tossed out. But you can clearly see that handing the cops a vague "correct carry" clause is inadvisable. The potential for abuse is simply too great. I wish I had the exact cases handy, because they would be a great rebuttal to this ill-advised language. Carrying concealed in a vehicle is not mentioned in this bill, it should be explicitly allowed. The following is the absolutely worst part of the bill. "A sheriff of a county MAY issue a license ..." The difference between "may issue" and "shall issue" is immense. "Shall issue" requires a sheriff to issue the license assuming all criteria are met. "May issue" leaves the decision to the sheriff. This kind of power is too open to abuse. Wrong sex? Too bad. Wrong race? Too bad. Wrong social class? Too bad. Forget to pay a speeding ticket promptly? Too bad. If you think I'm kidding, look at states where the police have this discretion; Donald Trump, Howard Stern, Bill Cosby all have carry permits in NYC. Ordinary people can't get them. In Massachusetts, permits are doled out at the discretion of the local town's chief of police. One chief is on record as saying, "I don't think broads should carry guns." Because of his discretionary authority, women do not get licenses to carry firearms. The sheriff has 30 days to process the application. With no cause for denial the license "shall" be issued. I note that the "may" and "shall" language thus appear within the same bill. This needs to be clarified. However, there are other concerns about causes for denial. One such cause is that the applicant must be of "good moral character." The bill does NOT define "good moral character." The bill must define what good moral character is, or it should be completely removed. Again, leaving it vague simply gives the sheriff discretion he should not have. The "good moral character" clause may be targeted to address fears that a known criminal, without an arrest record, might otherwise be issued a carry license. I would like to point out that other states with nondiscretionary carry licensing have not had any problems. The bill does not provide an appeal mechanism for persons who are wrongfully denied a license, or if the license is suspended or revoked. This should be added. The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information can do a background check for a handgun purchase in 5 business days. Exactly why the sheriffs need another 25 days is unclear. For example, New Hampshire requires licenses to be issued within 14 days unless the applicant is not qualified. This 14-day limit is attainable for Ohio. The license is good in the entire state regardless of any change in the county of residence during the licensure period. The licensee must notify the sheriff of the county of issuance of any change in address. The legislation does not provide for licensing to non-residents of Ohio. The legislation should require the state to issue licenses to non-residents. Such persons would benefit, and as Florida and other states that issue non-resident licenses illustrate, such people are not a criminal threat. There is no provision in the bill for reciprocal licensing, i.e., persons with carry license from other states cannot use that license in Ohio. I would like to see that added. The license is good for two years. A longer time period would be a nice improvement. Many states with concealed weapons licenses make them good for four years. Like the state of Florida, the state of Ohio could keep statistics on the number of people licensed, number of licenses revoked and for what reasons. This would be useful information to rebut any claims the gun grabbers bring up about "gunfights in the street" and that sort of nonsense. Of the 200,000+ licenses issued in Florida less than 1/10th of one percent were revoked because of firearms misuse. I'm glad to see concealed carry legislation was introduced, however I cannot support it in its present form. At a minimum the discretionary nature of issuance should be removed. Copies of the legislation are available from the State Senate Legislative Information Office at: 466-8842 (in Columbus) 1-800-282-0253 (elsewhere in Ohio, toll free) Please contact Senator Vukovich at: Senator Vukovich Ohio Senate Senate Building Columbus, OH 43215 614-466-8285 and let him know your opinion of his legislation. IS BILL CLINTON YOUR KING ? [Part two] Last month we asked the question, "Is Bill Clinton your king?" And then we gave you the answer from a research report out of Texas by 13 authors. This report is not just some wild-eyed speculation, the authors have included some 75 references to the laws in question. The conclusion is inescapable. We are and have been from the time of FDR living in a constitutional dictatorship. The state of emergency introduced on March 4, 1933 to deal with the great depression is STILL in effect. Furthermore, authority was granted to the President to have dictatorial powers over all commerce, money, transactions and property through a change in the "trading with the enemy" act of October 6, 1917. This change essentially made all transactions within the U.S. by its citizens, acts of trading with the "enemy." In other words the citizens of this country were defined to be "the enemy." There is no escaping the conclusion, that if you do any business what-so-ever in this country, Bill Clinton is your king. His royal word is the law of the land. You have no standing in a court of law. Your money and property are the king's land and the king's wealth. And Congress has given our king a blank check now and into the future. "The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken ... are hereby approved and confirmed." But before we start to practice our bows and curtseys for that Whitehouse tour, let's dig a little deeper into the details of this situation and see if we can understand further how this came about and if we can find a way out. In any major U.S. power grab, it would be unusual if the owners of the Federal Reserve banks were not in some way involved and the events of the early 1930's were not unusual in that regard. Because of the economic "emergency" in the country, we find in the papers of Herbert Hoover that the FED was requested to "urge" the President (FDR) to declare a bank holiday: "Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that, in this emergency, the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday, March 4, and Monday, March 6..." And the FED responded with a proposal for an executive order: "Whereas, it is provided in Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, that "the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of license or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, * * *" But what are those three asterisks? Referring to the Act of October 6, 1917, we recall: "(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)." But note that the FED's proposal for a presidential executive order ALREADY says: "as amended!" As you recall, the amendment to the Act of October 6, 1917 which was passed March 9, 1933 replaced the above exception with: "by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This was where the American people became the enemy. Now we can understand the depth and breadth of the FED's proposal. They have suggested in effect that once the law is amended (which was cleverly not spelled out in written documents) The President can write executive orders starting out as in their example calling on the authority of the trading with the enemy act, whereby the three asterisks imply a virtually unlimited range of actions the President can take based upon that authority! The report explains the historical relationship between gold, money, government and the eventual dictatorial powers of the president. "On March the 2nd, 1933 [editors: two days before FDR's inauguration], however, we find that Herbert Hoover had written a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of New York, asking them for recommendations for action based on the over-all situation at the time. The Federal Reserve Board responded with a resolution (Exhibit 30) which they had adopted, an excerpt from which follows: 'Resolution Adopted By The Federal Reserve Board Of New York. Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Board of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created national emergency...'" "In order to fully appreciate the significance of this last quote, we must recall that, in 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was passed, authorizing the creation of a central bank, the thought of which had already been noted in the Constitution. The basic idea of the central bank was, among other things, for it to act as a secure repository for the gold of the people. We, the People, would bring our gold to the huge, strong vaults of the Federal Reserve, and we would be issued a note which said, in effect, that, at any time we desired, we could bring that note back to the bank and be given our gold which we had deposited." "Until 1933, that agreement, that contract between the Federal Reserve and its depositors was honored. Federal Reserve Notes, prior to 1933, were indeed redeemable in gold. After 1933, the situation changed drastically. In 1933, during the depths of the Depression, at a time when We, The People, were struggling to stay alive and keep our families fed, the bankers began to say, 'People are coming in now wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract we have made with them to give them their gold on demand, and this contractual obligation is creating a national emergency.'" So in the Great Depression, the holders of our gold decided that something must be done to prevent its being returned to its owners. Who knows if it was even still there, after all, the "I'll hold your money for you" scam still probably stands as one of the oldest in the book. But Congress was ready not only to re-define gold, but all property as well: "Reading from (Exhibit 28) Senate Document No. 43, 'Contracts Payable in Gold' written in 1933: 'The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.' Do you realize what you see here? It is nothing less than a declaration by the U. S. Senate of the United Communist States of America! And the Federal Reserve Proposal had teeth for enforcement. "Further, in the next section of the Federal Reserve Board's proposal, we find that anyone violating any provision of this Act will be fined not more than $10,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both. A severe enough penalty at any time, but one made all the more harsh by the economic conditions in which most Americans found themselves at the time. And where were these alterations and amendments to be found? Not from the government itself, initially, no; they are first to be found in a proposal from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, a banking institution." "Let us recall the chronology of events: Herbert Hoover, in his last days as President of the United States, asked for a recommendation from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, and they responded with their proposals. We see that President Hoover did not act on the recommendation, and believed their actions were "neither justified nor necessary" (Appendix, Public Papers of Herbert Hoover, p. 1088). Let us see what happened; remember on March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States. On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extraordinary session of Congress to be held on March 9, 1933, as can be seen in Exhibit 32:" "On the next day, March 6th, 1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039, which has been included in this report, starting at the bottom of Exhibit 32. In Exhibit 32, we find the following: "Whereas there may have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency from our banking institutions for the purpose of hoarding" While you must remember that the gold stored by the government was YOUR gold which the bank was contractually required to return to depositors "on demand", FDR used the spin of "hoarding" to demand the theft of this property. As you know, Congress did go along with FDR and his proposals from the Federal Reserve Board. It is most interesting to note that the changes made in the Trading with the enemy act of October 6, 1917 by the amendment of March 9, 1933 were not only to make the people "the enemy" but also to ADD the words "hoarding and melting" of gold AND to eliminate the words "transfers of credit in any form" What this act in essence does, then, is to steal the property of the people of the United States under the guise of "hoarding" and place it all under the authority of the President of the United States, While at the same time EXEMPTING bank transactions from his authority EVEN IN TIME OF WAR! If you think this feature was insignificant, I strongly urge you to read the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by professor Antony C. Sutton. It contains the incredible story of how Wall Street financiers provided money to Hitler than enabled him not only to start WWII but also to keep it going. No one was ever prosecuted for this and you can be sure one reason is that by the changes made to the "trading with the Enemy Act" in 1933, only the people of this country were defined as "the enemy." Unbelievably, PROVIDING TRANSFERS OF CREDIT TO HITLER WAS NO LONGER CONSIDERED "TRADING WITH THE ENEMY!" Thus, given the authority granted by the special session of Congress that implemented the Federal Reserve Recommendations, our new King Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued his proclamation 2040 of March 9, 1933: "Whereas, on March 6th, 1933, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by Proclamation declared the existence of a national emergency and proclaimed a bank holiday..." "Whereas, under the Act of March 9, 1933, all Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed;" "Whereas, said national emergency still continues, and it is necessary to take further measures extending beyond March 9, 1933, in order to accomplish such purposes" "Now, therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in view of such continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended by the Act of March 9, 1933, do hereby proclaim, order, direct, and declare that all the terms and provisions of said Proclamation on March 6, 1933, and the regulations and orders issued thereunder are hereby continued in full force and effect until further proclamation by the President." Did you catch that: Until further proclamation by the President." The Texas report continues: "Now we understand that the Proclamation 2039, of March 6, 1933, and Proclamation 2040 of March 9, 1933, will continue until such time as another proclamation is made by "the President." Note that the term "the President" is not specific to President Roosevelt; it is a generic term which can equally apply to any President from Roosevelt to the present, and beyond." "So here we have President Roosevelt declaring a national emergency (we are now beginning to realize the full significance of those words) and closing the national banks for two days, by Executive Order. Further, he states that the Proclamations bringing about those actions will continue "in full force and effect" until such time as the President, and only the President, changes the situation." Can this be true? Can only the President un-crown himself? In Senate report 93-549 Justice Clark notes: "Most difficult from a standpoint of standing to sue. The Court, you might say, has enlarged the standing rule in favor of the litigant. But I don't think it has reached the point, presently, that would permit many such cases to be litigated to the merits." Which Senator Church summarized as follows: "What you are saying, then, is that if Congress doesn't act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers, that no one else is likely to get a standing in court to contest." But the Senate report concludes that even Congress is not free to act alone: "Furthermore, it would be a largely futile task unless we have the President's active collaboration. Having delegated this authority to the President - in ways that permit him to determine how long it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping emergency declarations alive - we now find ourselves in a position where we cannot reclaim the power without the President's acquiescence. We are unable to terminate these declarations without the President's signature, so we need a large measure of Presidential cooperation." The Texas report thus, concludes that: "It appears that no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power, and, if they will not sign the termination proclamation, the access to, and usage of, extraordinary powers does not terminate. At least, it has not been terminated for over 60 years." Senator Church Noted: "These powers, if exercised, would confer upon the President total authority to do anything he pleased." The Attorney General of the United States noted in a report dated May 21, 1973: "As a consequence, a `national emergency' is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has become the regular and normal method of governmental actions. What were intended by Congress as delegations of power to be used in only the most extreme situations, and for the most limited durations, have become everyday powers, and a state of `emergency' has become a permanent condition." So, what if we go for the BIG ONE? Article 3, Section 3, of our Constitution states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on confession in open court." The Texas report concludes: "Is the Act of March 9, 1933 treason? That would be for the common law courts to decide. At this point in our nation's history, the point is moot, for common law, and indeed the Constitution itself, do not operate or exist at present. Whether governmental acts of theft of the nation's money, the citizens' property, and American liberty as an ideal and a reality, which have occurred since 1933 is treason against the People of the United States, as the term is defined by the Constitution of the United States cannot even be determined or argued in a legal sense until the Constitution itself is re-established. For our part, however, we believe that, 'by their fruits ye shall know them,' and on that authority we rest our case." PRO does, however, wish to leave you with a somewhat more hopeful note. While the President IS your king, things are not quite as dark as you may imagine. The sovereign authority of your ruler may indeed hang like a sword of Damocles over our heads, but that authority HAS NOT been freely exercised to date. The reason, of course, is that our King is, in effect, the prisoner of those he rules. He is one and we are many. No king, no dictator, no absolute ruler can ever long oppose the deep-seated wishes of those governed and survive. This is why a controlled media is SO important. This is why there is such an effort to pretend that our country still is operating under constitutional rule. This is why your work in PRO is so important. Wake Up! There is real meaning in the idea that once the People learn the truth, the truth shall indeed set them free. ____________________________________________________________ A SPECIAL REPORT ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA You may obtain a copy of this report for $ 20.00 (Which includes copies of all references) A two-hour video of the same report is $ 25.00 Prices include Shipping and Handling. Send check or money order to: WAR AND EMERGENCY POWERS 4656 Alta Vista Dallas, Texas 75229 OR CALL 214-750-5932 Editors: You should note that sale of this report is not for financial gain. The authors have placed it in the public domain and you are free, in fact, encouraged to make copies and distribute them to your friends and relatives. ____________________________________________________________ DEAR PRO ... In the February 95 PROponent it was written: If you have trouble with your computer, every electronic jock knows that the way you fix it is to bow down and make a sacrifice to the god of computers, who as everybody knows lives somewhere in California. However, when it comes to "fixing" your Rights, most of us here in Ohio don't face East toward Washington, we know that the god of American Freedom lives somewhere out West (East of the Rocky Mountains), probably in Texas. Darn tooten He does. (I'm only a naturalized Texican) He might be one blue wolf of the south Texas plains, but that has not been revealed to me as only a naturalized Tejano. If Sr. Loboazul is not the above mentioned god, he is certainly one of his henchmen. (or helpers if you prefer) I might even be wrong, but if He doesn't reside in Texas, the area West of the Mississippi and East of the Rockies is certainly His domicile and chosen land. He also seems to have a special place in His heart for parts of the upper "Midwest" and PA. Joe Sylvester Plano, Texas [Editors: We thank this resident of "God's country" for giving credit to us few islands of the spirit of American Freedom still left East of the Mississippi who still stand proudly in the midst of a sea of political correctness.] ____________________________________________________________ "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952) ____________________________________________________________ NEW PRO-GUN PUBLICATIONS ... You are out there on the streets trying to save our Rights and convert the neutral and fight the disinformation of the national owned media, but to do that you need facts. You need truth. You need reliable information to set the record straight. Hopefully, the PROponent is one such source, but now there is more intellectual ammunition to destroy "gun control." Long-time PRO members may remember the Maccabee, the newsletter of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms ownership that seemed to die on the vine. It was good, but clearly the JPFO reports linking "gun control" and genocide were much more important projects. Now having had a little time to rethink the whole newsletter-publication issue they are once again publishing news for members. The new publication is in a newspaper-style format similar to Gun Week and takes a much broader view of the gun control question than the old newsletter which was written to appeal primarily to Jewish JPFO members. Needless to say, because of the kick-butt job JPFO has been doing, their organization has attracted a great many non-Jewish members as well. The new paper, The Firearms Sentinel reflects this wide support. As soon as you look at the table of contents in the first issue, you know this is your kind of paper. Not only do you see articles by all the big guns of our side, like Jay Simkin, Dr. Edgar Suter, Larry Pratt and David Kopel, but also you see printed in the background a figure of the classic Minuteman ... holding an M16 ... that lets you know right from the start where they are coming from. The first issue has a great historical piece on the battle of Athens of August 2, 1946 when the unorganized militia actually took back their government from crooked politicians. Yes, it really happened, right here in these United States. There is a review of Waco evidence and a debunking of the B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation League report on the militias. And Dr. Suter is there doing his usual fine job, debunking the medical hysteria over the "Black Talon". The Firearms Sentinel is clearly a great new addition to the sources of pro-gun information available to those of us fighting the gun-grabbers. You can get yours by becoming a JPFO member. No, you don't have to be Jewish to join. Dues are $20.00 per year (tax deductible). Give them a call at (414) 769-0760. But the good news doesn't stop with the Firearms Sentinel. The Second Amendment Foundation has also just launched two new gun-issue publications. The first is an 8 page newsletter called The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report and the other is a quarterly 68 page magazine called Gun News digest. Since one main purpose of the Second Amendment foundation is to inform the public, these new publications have been started to fill some information gaps for pro-gunners. Gun News Digest, will hopefully be able to examine in some detail, issues that other news publications, such as Gun Week cannot cover in the same depth. It hopes to give readers a broader overview of the gun issues. The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report on the other hand covers the other end of the spectrum. It is a compilation of all the tidbits and interesting facts and rumors that come across the desks of the Gun Week editor, Joe Tartaro and publisher, Alan Gottlieb. Gun News Digest will be available on newsstands and in bookstores at $2.95 per issue and The Gottlieb-Tartaro Report is currently available for the half-price rate of $30.00 per year. Write them at 12500 NE 10th Place, Bellevue, WA 98005. Knowledge is power! CLEVELAND BACKS OFF A LITTLE ... Last month we reported on the effort by Cleveland's mayor Michael White to tighten the screws on what remains of Cleveland gun owners. The good news is that gun owners are no longer just staying quiet and taking it. The bad news is that the big uproar over the proposed ordinance only caused him to drop the "Saturday Night Special" ban as part of a "New York City Compromise." If you don't know what that is, let me explain. The Ohio hick goes to NYC and wanders around dazed by it all. The slick talker comes up and says, "give me all your money." The Ohio yokel says, "why should I do that?" Then the con man explains how disagreement is bad and there is no need to argue. He suggests a "compromise" to end the dispute: The visitor can only hand over HALF his money! Well the half that Mayor White is looking to have handed over still includes: Turning the firearms owner ID card into permission from the City to own firearms (a license). Requiring an "arsenal" license for owning more than 20 handguns or two bricks of .22 ammo (1000 rounds). Requiring that ALL handgun transfers in the city be reported to the Chief of police within 5 days. [I presume that this time they really mean 5 (five) days rather than the five "working days" of the "Brady" bill that really means from a minimum of seven to whatever they choose]. The importance of ALL Ohioans fighting this can't be stressed too much. Cleveland has been used as "example" by gun-grabbing council members in other Ohio cities. The most recent Columbus ban was modeled after the Cleveland "assault weapon" ban. You can call the Cleveland City Clerk's Office at (216) 664-4551 or (216) 664-4539 to find out the current status of proposed city ordinance #52-94. Councilman Michael Polensek has been fighting the big brother measure and you should call him at (216) 664-4236 and thank him for standing up for the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Cleveland Mayor Michael White can be reached at (216) 664-2900. ALL gun owners should call him up and indicate (politely) that you do not appreciate the example he is trying to set for other cities in this state or for that matter the entire country. HR666, 4TH FALLS ... Yep, that's the real number, HR666! And we are sorry to report that the bill pretty much lives up to its number in terms of its deceptive cleverness. Let's talk for a minute about the mechanisms of a political power-grab. There are many aspects to this, of course, but clearly the ultimate aspect is that "power grows out of the barrel of a gun." As Carroll Quigley has pointed out in his massive tome, "Tragedy and Hope", in an age where weapons are specialized and few, society tends to be totalitarian in structure. In an age when weapons are cheap and easily available to the people at large, society tends to develop into democratic mechanisms. This is history. Thus, (no surprise here) all the gun-grabber dreams of the magical elimination of all guns from society are, in fact, little more than dreams of a previous "more civilized" authoritarian age, where a royal elite ruled with an iron hand extended across the land by their personal heavily and elaborately armed knights. An age quickly ended by the "easy availability" of firearms. So in the continuing fight over "gun control" you must understand that mere passage of laws outlawing gun ownership is NOT sufficient. A gun ban doesn't do it. We saw this in California and even in peaceful, serene Canada where much of the population favors "gun control." One day there are a zillion guns across the land and the next day after the ban there are STILL a zillion guns across the land. People in massive numbers simply ignore the laws. They refuse to register. They refuse to turn in their guns. This leaves the power elite with but one alternative: ultimately you will have to go out and gather them up. This will require warrantless searches. This will require subversion of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. HR666 is a good first step in that direction. The bill which recently passed the House, on it's surface supposedly prevents criminals from "getting off" on technicalities. The media story is about cases being thrown out because somebody "didn't cross a 'T' or dot an 'i'. Unfortunately, many angry conservatives have bought this line. The bill of Rights is NOT a technicality! Moreover, HR666 is being presented as some kind of "Republican" idea from the "contract with America." This is disinformation too! The allowance of evidence obtained from illegal searches if they were performed in "good faith" (whatever that means) was something the Democrats wanted in the original Crime Bill. We warned you about that back during the Crime Bill fight. The problem was that the massive resistance we put up caused them to drop some of these "controversial" issues to get it passed. Now the R's are dutifully cleaning up the loose ends. Parties change, the agenda against the American people doesn't. The two key passages from HR666 are as follows: "(a) Evidence Obtained by Objectively Reasonable Search or Seizure. - Evidence which is obtained as a result of a search or seizure shall not be excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground that the search or seizure was in violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, if the search or seizure was carried out in circumstances justifying an objectively reasonable belief that it was in conformity with the fourth amendment. The fact that evidence was obtained pursuant to and within the scope of a warrant constitutes prima facie evidence of the existence of such circumstances." "(b) Evidence Not Excludable by Statute or Rule. - (1) Generally. - Evidence shall not be excluded in a proceeding in a court of the United States on the ground that it was obtained in violation of a statute, an administrative rule or regulation, or a rule of procedure unless exclusion is expressly authorized by statute or by a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority." Take a good look at exactly what these two provisions SAY, because there are quite a few well-meaning people out there who are saying that these laws don't mean what they say. But you know very well that if the law says it, the government bureaucrats will always interpret the law to give themselves the maximum authority. Section a) says, in effect, that if the police have "an objective reasonable belief" that they were following the 4th Amendment then that's good enough. A system of law based on BELIEF rather than facts? Just how ignorant do they think we are? Don't answer that. Even better, is the last line which says that if they find evidence against you (say a banned magazine or gun part) then THAT FACT ALONE says that the evidence CANNOT be excluded from a court of law no matter how illegally it was obtained! You see, finding evidence constitutes evidence on the face of it that police had a "reasonable" belief in what they were doing. This is just a twist on the amendment we tacked on the crime bill where a magazine being unmarked constitutes prima facie evidence that it is pre-ban. They must have liked that approach, because now they are using it to bite our butts. Section b) is even worse. Here we find that if the police violate the law in obtaining evidence, that evidence cannot be excluded unless the statute or rule the police have violated has an inclusion that says: evidence obtained by police breaking this law shall be excluded. So if the police happen to beat a confession out of you, well, that can be used in court because the legislature forgot to add a sentence to the assault laws that says: Oh, by the way, if the police commit assault to get evidence, it is excluded from court. Well isn't that special. HR666 is expected to have heavy opposition in the Senate. Write your Senators and ask them to oppose this measure. It's not about a few small-time crooks getting off, it's about grabbing your guns. But long-time PROponent readers know by now that they never just come at you from just one side. It is always a co-ordinated attack from as many directions as they can muster. So we find that Linda Thompson (we had better verify this EO) has posted the following executive order signed by Bill Clinton on February 9, 1995: "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103-359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows: "Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section." Let's see, giving "gas'em and burn'em" Reno authority to conduct warrantless searches for up to one year... I can just hear it now: Gosh, we were convinced that all those unorganized militias were getting money and guns from North Korea, we just had to do another Waco-style "search". Please remember that the Waco incident was NOT based on an arrest. The ATF was not there to arrest anyone. The whole incident was based on making a "search!" After HR666 passes, even if you live through their search and can prove the whole search was a fraud, you still go to court. The noose gets tighter... ____________________________________________________________ "I believe there are more instances of abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations..." James Madison ____________________________________________________________ PATRIOT GAMES ... I had heard negative things about the militia story in the Columbus Socialist-Democrat oops, I mean Columbus Guardian, but when Bill Buckel sent me a copy I must say I was surprised at what I read. This article was good. This article was as reasonably fair as I have ever seen the Guardian go. Hey, it even started with a free ad for the PRO Gun Show! I'm sure liberal-left Guardian readers were properly shocked and outraged by descriptions of "ziggurats of ammunition piled high" and the books on sale like Be your own Undertaker: How to dispose of a dead body. And don't forget: "Guns - all sizes and stocks - are traded like Mickey Mantles." If Guardian readers are shocked, and have a few loose fasteners on the subject of firearms, well, that's their problem. Our problem is only if the descriptions were fair and accurate. I'd say they were. There are "ziggurats of ammunition" at the PRO show. You CAN buy books like "How to dispose of a dead body" ... and worse. And guns ARE traded like "Mickey Mantles." So what? It's all a great example of the American ideal. The PRO show flies in the face of all the "gun control" theories. There are thousands of ordinary citizens milling around piles of guns and ammo and none are overcome with a sudden desire to kill their fellow human beings. Even liberal left-wing reporters are allowed in to safely mill amongst the firearms. After all, even though we don't agree with their politics, they are Americans too. They also have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms whether or not they choose to exercise it. So "come on down" and learn that citizens can be trusted with guns. I know there are some who will complain about the article emphasizing the oddball and ignoring the tables stretching as far as the eye can see covered with polished duck hunting shotguns. But on the other hand, they at least didn't mention the guy trying out for Gun Show shaman wearing a fox pelt (with head still attached) as a hat. The important thing here was that Gun Show patrons were made out to be "average American citizens" and not a bunch of Confederate flag waving yahoos. This kind of fair unbiased reporting is what we have been trying to get from the press for years! But the story really isn't about the Gun Show, it's about the Ohio Unorganized Militia and once you see the large photo of OUM communications officer, James (JJ) Johnson staring out from the page looking like the cat that just ate the canary, you know our side is on a roll. And JJ should look smug. In that one photo he single-handedly debunks the major (and doubtless expensive) effort by the Defamation League to paint the militia movement as some kind of racist offshoot of the Klan or other white supremacist neo-nazi groups. This is so cool. What are the Guardian writers to do? They can't call JJ racist any more than they can call for the Gun Show booksellers to be censored. So instead they just tell it like it is. "Johnson jokes as comedians have in light-hearted routines, staring incredulously at the skin on his arms. 'You mean I'm black?!' His voice has an oily sarcasm." JJ tells the reporter, "This is not about race, it's about the Constitution." It's even more than that. It's not even about politics, it's about the Constitution. Sure the views of most PRO members differ considerably from those of the more socialist (they call it progressive) staff and readers of the Guardian, but they are also Americans too. Slowly but surely, even some of these die-hard lefties are coming to understand that it's not just about the Second Amendment anymore. They have heard the things PRO members, and militia members, and even Libertarians have been saying and they thought them to be outrageous. But outrageous is not the same as false. Little by little some of these people who dismissed us as "wackos" screaming "wolf" are beginning to see what is going on and are starting to realize that they too have a heavy stake in the final outcome. We welcome them to the fight. We can argue about political views after we put a stop to this assault on our Rights and the Constitution. FRIENDS OF THE NRA... If you wanted a table up front at the Central Ohio Friends of the NRA Dinner and Auction on March 28, 1995, you are too late. All of the choice tables have been reserved. Second row tables are still available. Tickets are $25 for members of the NRA and their spouses, and $35 for non-members. The festivities are at the Villa Milano on Schrock Rd., and begin with the happy hour at 6:00 pm. A dinner of prime rib will be served at 7:15 pm. If you have special dietary needs, please tell us via the PRO hotline: 268-0122. Sales of tickets are far ahead of last year, and we have to expand the dining area of the attendees. We are still in short supply of door prizes. If you would like to contribute an item, please contact Dennis Walker at 268-0122, or Pam Sheets at 447-1229. All items that are donated are tax deductible. Come and spend an enjoyable evening with fellow NRA members and help raise money for the NRA Foundation and the State of Ohio. Half of all monies raised return to the state for range development, hunting and shooting related activities. See you there! LETTERS... Dear Editors: Having been to a number of PRO sponsored gun shows in Hilliard, when I saw the January, 1995 PROponent at R&L Bait Store I picked up a copy, curious to see what you guys had to say. I was disappointed. I offer these remarks in the spirit of constructive criticism with the hope of furthering the protection of our second amendment rights. The hostile and sarcastic language in some of the articles(e.g., "Job Discrimination") is very off-putting. It is hard to get around this language and on to the point of the article. I actually found some interesting things in the articles, but expressions like "California nuts," "do-gooder," "scumbag" make reading unpleasant and, because the use of such terminology diverts attention, unnecessarily time-consuming. You may feel better after slinging a little mud, but if you hope to widen your support base, you would be well advised to let the facts of the case speak for themselves. Unless, that is, all you ever want to do is preach to the (too-small) choir. Sincerely, Ed Makruski Worthington, Ohio [Editors: First off, we would like to thank Mr. Makruski for his letter. We really do appreciate his criticism. Even some of the PRO Board of Directors agreed with him. However, it is our purpose to "preach" to the choir so that the "choir" will go out and spread the word about what we have written. We will admit to purposely using inflammatory language. Our intention was to make the reader feel the same disgust and outrage that we felt in reading this book which under the guise of professional advice promotes fallacious and patently false anti-gun propaganda. We want every PRO member to express the same disdain that we do for such egregious misuse of professional credentials to promote the failed social concept of crime control by disarmament of law-abiding citizens. The use of the term "scumbag" was coined from one of our legal advisors. Everyone uses the word "criminal" when talking about lawbreakers. Or "repeat offenders." But that could be just a check forger. These words do not adequately describe the predators that prey on our society. But your point is well taken. This editor will use "predator" in describing those that wreak havoc and vicious acts of depredation on the law-abiding citizens of our country. "Do-gooder" usually refers to the liberals that have made it almost impossible to punish juveniles, keep convicted felons in jail for their complete sentences, build "projects" such a Caprini Green in Chicago that rob people of their dignity and are breeding grounds for succeeding generations of drug addicts, criminals and a very few that escape their desperate cycle. But not all liberals agree that policy should be set on the basis of a few testimonials and a political agenda rather than an honest desire for real solutions, so we used the term "do-gooder." California nuts is self explanatory. In Los Angles, one can travel several blocks from Rodeo Drive and see people sleeping on the side walks. Millions of dollars in the windows of Rodeo Drive. Hundreds of homeless on the streets. Mansions that cost many millions to build, complete with every luxury imaginable, yet on the same street there are homeless on the streets. Many counter cultures and religious cults have begun and spread in California. Some as destructive as Charles Manson. And the riots. We have high priced actors spreading their make believe violence all over the public consciousness, and then they attempt to convince us that their fictional view of the world should be a basis for our laws. This is demonstrably insane. PRO of course does recognize and celebrate another group of California residents who have for many years been fighting a patriotic and desperate battle against the above described West coast policies. We never meant to imply that ALL California residents have lost touch with reality. We will try not to use the "California nuts" term any more, but it fits. In conclusion, we would like to say that if you are more concerned about a criminal being insulted by the term "scumbag" than you are about the fact that he will shoot you in the face without remorse for the $20 in your wallet; if you are more upset over the term "do-gooder" than you are over degree-bearing professionals promoting a public hiring discrimination policy based upon ownership of a gun or a subscription to an "unapproved" magazine; if you object to our description of people promoting insane policies masquerading as science as "nuts," but are not concerned that such irrational laws are actually being considered by lawmakers for YOU to live under; if you are not mad as hell and ready to fight these things, then we, as editors and writers have failed miserably to do our job.] Dear PRO: I am shocked to find that you have employed Sarah Brady type tactics to the so-called "problem" of members loaning their membership cards. You are punishing the honest members of the organization for the behavior for those few that cannot follow the rules. There are many members that go to every show, and some of them on both days. These are honest members whom you are condemning. If this card borrowing is such a problem, I suggest you use an instant verification with a picture ID. The arguments outlined on the flyer are the same weak arguments the government uses to try to disarm the American people. I find this blatant hypocrisy reprehensible. How can you call yourself the Peoples Rights Organization when it is painfully obvious this is just an attempt to garner more income from your loyal members. If you wish my further support of your organization I strongly suggest you rethink your policy. Mr. Guy-Harold Smith William P. Wilt Concerned PRO Member who thinks this all seems a bit too familiar. [Editors: Balderdash! Many letters and calls came in about the new policy on admissions to the gun shows. Smith's and Wilt's letter were the most condemning. PRO is not a government agency trying to deny members of their privileges, nor is PRO in any way akin to Sarah Brady. Picture ID? How about a thumb print and Social Security Number? Pretty soon going to the Gun Show would be just like buying a gun inside Columbus city limits! We had an Open House with the Officers of PRO at the February Gun Show and the admission policy was the hot topic of conversation. WE MADE A MISTAKE. Hopefully, we have corrected it to everyone's satisfaction. The board members never intended to deny PRO members admission to shows. It just never occurred to us that some people go to the gun shows as a social event! We just thought that once members had scanned the show for bargains, they wouldn't be back to scan the same stuff the next day. So now we have a new solution. New cards have been issued with 13 numbered squares on them. On Saturday, a small hole will be punched in the corresponding number for that show. On Sunday, a larger hole will be punched in the same square so that the entire number will be punched out. This allows everyone two admissions for the weekend. One for each day. Before this policy was adopted, it had been estimated that 20 to 30% of our admissions at Hilliard were PRO members. After implementing the new policy, the percentage of PRO members dropped to 10 to 12%. Yes, it was a problem that we were concerned about. If someone can't afford the five dollar admission fee to attend a gun show, how are they going to be able to afford anything at the show? PRO and PRO-Central are the only non-profit organizations that this editor knows of that put on gun shows for the sole purpose of defending the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights. This is our sole source of income to fund law suits, put on gun safety classes, teach teachers gun safety, attend county fairs, expos and other community events. All expos and community events charge fees for booth space. It takes money to mail out legislative alerts, automated phone trees, and a voter's guide to over 12,000 people in Ohio. PRO does not continually bombard you to send us money. Maybe we should. Our current law suit against the City of Columbus has already cost us $5,000, the NRA Civil Defense Fund $5,000, and possibly, the Ohio Gun Collector's Association the same amount. That is just to get the suit started. There is no telling how much it will cost to restore the Second Amendment Rights of Columbus residents. The last suit cost almost $70,000, $63,000 of it was recovered. It takes money up-front to begin a law suit. It takes money to keep the suit active and to follow it to it's conclusion. Appeals court, State Supreme Court and even the Supreme Court. PRO hopes that this new policy of punching holes in your membership cards is acceptable to our members.] NEW OFFICERS... The elected officers of PRO for the 1995-96 year are : Mike Regan, Chairman; Dennis Walker, Vice-Chairman; Ron Herman, Treasurer, and Todd Koehler, Secretary. Congratulations to the newly elected officers. PRO wishes to extend it's heartfelt thanks to outgoing treasurer, Sherry Herman. Besides being married to Ron, she juggled work and a son to handle PRO finances for the past year. The editors of the PROponent know that the newly elected officers live in exciting times and hope that they do as well as our past officers have done, and that they lead PRO onward and upward in our fight to preserve the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights. H.R. 97... HR 97 is a bill that has been introduced in Washington by Representative Kennelly, which was then referred to the Judiciary Committee. HR 97 will, if passed, establish a rapid deployment force consisting of 2,500 Federal law enforcement officers. These officers shall have experience and training in: Investigation of violent crime, drug-related crime, criminal gangs, and juvenile delinquency; and in community action to prevent crime. The Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) shall be staffed by members of the FBI, Department of Justice and any other government agency.(BATF) Upon application by a governor of a state and the chief executive officer of the affected local government or governments and upon finding that the occurrence of criminal activity in a particular jurisdiction is being exacerbated by the interstate flow of drugs, guns, and criminals, the Deputy Assistant Director (of the FBI) may deploy on a temporary basis a unit of the RDF of an appropriate number of law enforcement officers to the jurisdiction to assist local law enforcement agencies in the investigation of criminal activities. The Deputy Assistant Director, upon consultation with the Attorney General, may agree to deploy a unit of the RDF to a state or local jurisdiction on such conditions as the Deputy Assistant Director considers appropriate. The unit shall be deputized in accordance with state law so as to empower such officers to make arrests and participate in the prosecution of criminal offenses under state law. Janet Reno is in favor of this bill. Does Waco, or Ruby Ridge stir any troublesome memories? Why does the United States of America need a rapid deployment force? Crime and criminal activity is not that great of a problem, except where the various governments have already disarmed the American public. Our U.S. government already has a rapid deployment strike force in existence. It is called Delta Force. Needless to say, we urge you to contact your representative in Washington to oppose this bill. Remember, one letter is worth many phone calls. FBI DATA... Not withstanding the media blitz concerning the success of the Brady law, the latest FBI figures prove otherwise. Those states already having waiting periods and background checks have had much higher violent crime rates, overall, compared to parts of the country where waiting periods were not in effect before the Brady Act. These violent crime rates break down as follows: Total violent crime, 40.3% higher; firearm related violent crime, 20.4% higher; firearm homicide, 4.2% higher; handgun homicide, 8.6% higher; firearm robbery, 55.4% higher. Their firearm aggravated assault rate was 2.9% lower.(Rates=number of crimes per 100,000 population. Data: FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1993) The facts are clear: More gun control = more crime. [Editors: the above article and the next one was taken from the NRA Grassfire, February, 1995 edition, Vol. 1, No. 2.] WALMART... The NRA-ILA Research & Information staff recently found there is no truth to the rumor that WALMART has been contributing a portion of its profits to anti-gun groups. And to clarify why its employees are asking purchasers of ammunition what type of gun the ammo is for, WALMART says they're trying to insure that the customer is 18 years old if purchasing rifle ammunition, and 21 if purchasing rounds for a handgun, the age requirement established by federal law. LAST CALL FOR DUES! March is the last month to pay dues before your PROponent and Gun Show admission stop. If you have not yet paid your dues, please pay them now. ____________________________________________________________ The PROponent is published by: Peoples Rights Organization; 5 E. Long St., Suite 412; Columbus, OH 43215; Tel (614) 268-0122 Fax (614) 275-0092 EMAIL: 73427.1615@compuserve.com or dcarney@freenet.columbus.oh.us Michael T. Regan, Chairman; Ron Herman, Vice Chairman Dennis Walker, Secretary; Sherry Herman, Treasurer Editors: Dennis Walker and Frank Jacoby Contributions, either written or financial are gladly accepted. Anyone wishing to reprint all or part of an article from the PROponent may do so. Please mention the PROponent and the issue that the article was in, and send a copy of your publication to our PRO office. (We like to know what your organization is doing too.) Also, PRO will exchange newsletters with any pro-gun, pro-rights, pro-hunting, etc. group to further grass-roots communication. Put us on your newsletter mailing list and we will put your club on ours. Unlimited electronic distribution of all or part of this text file is permitted so long PRO is credited. PRO general meetings are held the third Tuesday of every month 8:00pm at Veterans Memorial Auditorium, W. Broad St. Columbus, Ohio. "That government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth" _________________________________________________________________